John 1-4 (ICC): A Critical and Exegetical Commentary 9781472556202, 9780567031587, 9780567595669

Citation preview

GENERAL EDITORS’ PREFACE

Much scholarly work has been done on the Bible since the publication of the first volumes of the International Critical Commentary in the 1890s. New linguistic, textual, historical and archaeological evidence has become available, and there have been changes and developments in methods of study. In the twenty-first century there will be as great a need as ever, and perhaps a greater need, for the kind of commentary that the International Critical Commentary seeks to supply. The series has long had a special place among works in English on the Bible, because it has sought to bring together all the relevant aids to exegesis, linguistic and textual no less than archaeological, historical, literary and theological, to help the reader to understand the meaning of the books of the Old and New Testaments. In the confidence that such a series meets a need, the publishers and the editors are commissioning new commentaries on all the books of the Bible. The work of preparing a commentary on such a scale cannot but be slow, and developments in the past half-century have made the commentator’s task yet more difficult than before, but it is hoped that the remaining volumes will appear without too great intervals between them. No attempt has been made to secure a uniform theological or critical approach to the problems of the various books, and scholars have been selected for their scholarship and not for their adherence to any school of thought. It is hoped that the new volumes will attain the high standards set in the past, and that they will make a significant contribution to the understanding of the books of the Bible. G. I. D. G. N. S.

This page intentionally left blank

PREFACE

John McHugh was surely one of the most learned and able New Testament scholars of the latter part of the twentieth century and the first years of the twenty-first. For some years a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, he had a worldwide reputation. The great wealth of his learning was matched by penetrating insight, originality and clarity of mind. He was, I think, exceptionally well prepared to undertake the especially formidable task of writing a full-scale commentary on St John’s Gospel. It is a matter of profound regret that he did not live to complete it. John was a splendid colleague, who could always be relied on to give wise counsel. Always generous in his readiness to assist other scholars, he sometimes allowed his altruism to hold up the progress of his own work. He was greatly appreciated by the students who heard his lectures, and those who had tutorials with him were specially privileged. In addition to his knowledge of the Bible, of Rabbinic writings and of the Qumran texts, he had a wonderful familiarity with classical Greek and Latin literature, with mediaeval Latin, and with a wide range of English and other literatures. He was fluent in a number of European languages. He had a notable feeling for language, which is reflected in the clarity and felicitousness of his own English style. John McHugh had a keen realization of the need for theologians to be concerned about politics. He was always well informed about current affairs, and cared deeply for justice and compassion. He was, for example, deeply concerned about the injustices suffered by the Palestinians since 1948, though he was never forgetful of the sufferings of the Jews in the 1930s and 1940s or lacking in compassion for them. He was a wonderful friend and a shining example of what it means to be a faithful Christian pastor. Charles Cranfield

This page intentionally left blank

INTRODUCTION

Introductions to commentaries on biblical books have nearly always set out the author’s views on the authorship, sources, setting, and textual tradition of the writing about to be considered. Now and again, a commentator will explain that while the extended Introduction precedes the exegesis, this was the last part of the commentary to be written. At the time of his sudden death on 3 February 2006 at Alnwick, Northumberland, Dr John McHugh left a largely complete commentary on the first four chapters of John’s Gospel. He had not written the Introduction to his planned ICC commentary on the whole of John’s Gospel. Several years ago in discussion with me (as General Editor of the New Testament ICC commentaries) he explained that it would not be possible to draft the Introduction until he had completed at least half the planned two volume commentary. I fully concurred. Dr McHugh’s views on the topics usually considered in an Introduction would have been of considerable interest to many readers. In a few places in the commentary which follows it is possible to glimpse the ways he would have tackled disputed questions concerning the origin and structure of this Gospel, and its relationship to other early Christian writings. Alas, the notes he left did not allow me to include a summary of his views with any confidence. The sub-divisions adopted and the titles given to the main sections and sub-sections of John 1–4 are striking. They presuppose particular ways of construing the text and will certainly stimulate many readers to further thought. For example, along with many commentators, Dr McHugh confines the Prologue to John 1.1-18. Verses 19 to 51 of ch. 1 are not read as ‘a second Prologue’, but as the first section of the evangelist’s presentation of ‘The First Week’ in the ‘ministry’ of Jesus which runs from 1.19 to 2.12. In notes Dr McHugh left he carefully compares his own plans for the topics to be discussed in his Introduction with the Introductions to the major modern commentaries. While it is a pity that there is no traditional Introduction to this commentary, there is a sense in which its absence may be an advantage. We have no option but to consider carefully with Dr McHugh the text, the text, and nothing but the text. This commentary focuses sharply on precisely what the evangelist wrote. The exegesis is not pre-determined by theories about the origin, social and religious setting of this Gospel. Dr McHugh would certainly have accepted the old adage that the evangelist is the finest commentator on this Gospel.

xii

ISAIAH

John McHugh gave an intriguing foretaste of his views on many passages in the later chapters in John’s Gospel in his article, ‘“In Him was Life”: John’s Gospel and the Parting of the Ways’, in ed. James D. G. Dunn, Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways A.D. 70 to 135, WUNT 66, Tübingen 1992, 123-58. There he tackled a topic which continues to attract comment and debate: the extent to which John’s Gospel is anti-Jewish. He insisted that the Fourth Gospel cannot be called polemically anti-Jewish. ‘There is certainly a powerful and deep stream of apologetic directed towards those of the Jewish faith who might wish to understand how the new Christians looked at Jesus, but hostility in principle seems too strong a word’ (p. 158). Dr McHugh had been working on his ICC commentary for many years. From time to time he sent his drafts on sections of the text to me. So I have known for a long time that we could anticipate an outstanding, fresh reading of John’s Gospel. Dr McHugh also sought comments on his drafts from his friends and former colleagues in the Department of Theology at Durham University, Professors Kingsley Barrett and Charles Cranfield. They both shared my conviction that since Dr Mc Hugh’s draft on chs. 1 to 4 was quite distinctive and almost complete, we should try to secure its publication. My predecessor as General Editor of the series, Professor Charles Cranfield, first invited Dr McHugh to write the ICC commentary on John’s Gospel. His warm commendation of the commentary and his appreciation of Dr McHugh as scholar, colleague, and teacher have been printed as a Preface on p. ix. Professor Barrett, himself the author of one of the most influential commentaries on John’s Gospel published in the twentieth century, writes as follows: To be asked to add a note to what Professor Cranfield has written in his Preface is a great privilege. It can only be a word of wholehearted agreement. Nothing he has said is exaggerated. Dr McHugh’s sudden death was not only a deep personal sorrow but a grievous academic loss. He was in every way—in languages, in history, in theology, in philosophy—qualified to write a great commentary on the Gospel of St John, and had begun, in the four chapters we have, to write such a commentary. Completed it would have stood beside those of Augustine, of Hoskyns (also incomplete at the author’s death), and of Bultmann. It is left to another generation to complete the task. It remains for me to add a word about the commentary which follows. Following his retirement from his Durham University post, for several years Dr McHugh undertook some parish duties while he continued to work on his commentary. I am certain that he conveyed in sermons and homilies to his parishioners some of his theological reflections on John’s Gospel. How fortunate his parishioners were! When ill health forced early retirement from his parish responsibilities, he pressed ahead as he was able with his scholarly work.

INTRODUCTION

xiii

In his correspondence with me, Dr McHugh mentioned that once he had completed his exegesis of the whole Gospel, he intended to add some further theological comments to the drafts. He also mentioned that he intended to interact more fully with at least some of the secondary literature. I readily agreed, anxious that he should press ahead with his invaluable exegesis. As far as possible I have refrained from modifying the material which John left. The bibliographies are the major exception. I have drawn on John’s own bibliographies and added references to some of the more recent secondary literature. I hope the bibliographies will assist readers who wish to consult some of the enormous secondary literature. I doubt whether any individual can now master it all! I am responsible for the present arrangement of the bibliographies and of the supplementary material in the fourteen excursuses. I am very grateful to Mr Damian McHugh, John’s brother, for making available to me not only computer disks and printouts, but also John’s impressive collection of offprints and his bibliographical and other notes. The enthusiasm and support of Mr Haaris Naqvi of T&T Clark International has been much appreciated, as has the meticulous copy editing of Dr Duncan Burns of Forthcoming Publications Ltd. Graham Stanton Epiphany 2009

This page intentionally left blank

ABBREVIATIONS

General a ca. cf.� ed(s). ellipsis et al. ETr EV FS HB HT ���� LXX MT NF

pace sc slav s.v. s.v.l. TR vid.

Aquila circa; about consult the commentary (or commentaries) on that verse editor(s), edited by words in incomplete sentence et alii (and others) English translation English versions Festschrift, essays published to honour a friend and / or colleague Hebrew Bible Hebrew text kai ta loipa = etc. Septuagint Massoretic text Neue Folge with due deference to scilicet; that is to say, namely Slavonic version sub voce; under the word, look up the word si vera lectio; if this is the correct reading Textus Receptus vide; see, consult

Journals, Series, and Works of Reference AB ABD Abel Altaner ANRW

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols., New York, 1992 F.-M. Abel, Grammaire du greq biblique, Paris, 1927 B. W. Altaner, Patrology, Freiburg, 1960 eds. H. Temporini and W. Haase, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, Berlin, 1972–

xvi

ANT AOFG ASTI AtBib BAG

BDAG

BDB

BDF

Ben

BETL BHS

BJ BJRL B-L

BZ CBQ CBQMS CCSG CCSL CH Chilton CSCO CSEL

JOHN 1–4

ed. J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford, 1993 C. F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, Oxford, 1922 Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute L. H. Grollenberg, Atlas of the Bible, ETr, London, 1956 W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek– English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Chicago/Cambridge, 1957 W. Bauer, F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Chicago/Cambridge, 2000 F. Brown, S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Oxford, 1906 F. Blass, A. Debrunner and R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ETr, Chicago, 1961 references to the seventeenth- to eighteenth-century Benedictine (Maurist) editions of the Fathers (convenient, since all later editions such as PL PG SC cite them with this abbreviation) Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, editio funditus renovata, Stuttgart, 1967–77. The Massoretic text (MT) is cited according to this edition Bible de Jérusalem Bulletin of the John Rylands Library M. E. Boismard and A. Lamouille, Un évangile préjohannique. [Includes the text of the homilies of Saint John Chrysostom which contain citations of John’s Gospel, in Greek with French translation.] Études Bibliques 17, 18, 24, 25, 28, 29, Paris, 1993–96 Biblische Zeitschrift Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Corpus Christianorum, series Graeca, Turnhout, 1977– Corpus Christianorum, series Latina, Turnhout, 1967– Corpus Hermeticum B. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus, and Notes, Edinburgh, 1987 Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium, Paris, 1903 Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum, Vienna, 1886–

ABBREVIATIONS

DACL DBS DCH CGPAT DS DSSE EDNT

EstBibl ETL EvTh ExpTimes GANT

GCS GGNT Goodwin HALAT

HALOT HDB HDCG HJ HR

HTR IBNTG ICC Jastrow JB JBmg

xvii

eds. F. Cabrol and H. Leclercq Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, I–XV, 1903–53 eds. L. Pirot and A. Robert, Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplément, Paris, 1928– ed. D. J. A. Clines, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, Sheffield, 1993– A. D. Denis, Concordance greque des pseudépigraphes d’ancient testament, Paris, 1987 H. Denziger and E. Schönmetzer, Enchiridion symbolorum G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, Harmondsworth, 2nd ed., 1975 eds. H. Balz and H. Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, 3 vols., Grand Rapids, 1990–93 (German original, 1978–83) Estudios Bíblicos Epheremides Theologicae Lovanienses, 1924– Evangelische Theologie Expository Times M. Zerwick, A Grammatical Analysis of the New Testament, trans. and ed. by M. Grosvenor, Rome, 1974–79 Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, 1897– A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, London, 1914 W. G. Goodwin, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb, London, 1890 eds. W. Baumgartner et al., Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexicon zum Alten Testament, 5 vols., Leiden, 1967–95 eds. L. Koehler et al., Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, ETr, 2 vols., Leiden, 2000 Hastings Dictionary of the Bible ed. J. Hastings, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1906–1908 Heythrop Journal E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and other Greek Versions of the OT, 2 vols. and supplement, Oxford, 1892–1906 Harvard Theological Review C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, Cambridge, 1953 International Critical Commentary M. J. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, London, 1903 Jerusalem Bible, 1966 marginal note to JB

xviii

JBL JG JSNTSup JSNT JSOTSup JTS JV KBR

LAB LHVT Loeb LSJ LXX Neofiti

MHT

MM

NA26

NA27

NAB NIV NIVmg NJB NovT NovTSup NRSV NRSVmg NTA

JOHN 1–4

Journal of Biblical Literature E. A. Abbott, Johannine Grammar, London, 1906 Journal for the Study of New Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies E. A. Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary, London, 1905 L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner and M. E. J. Richardson, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 2 vols., Leiden, 2001 Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo ed. F. Zorell, Lexicon Hebraicum Veteris Testamenti, Rome, 1940–84 Loeb Classical Library H. G. Liddell, R. Scott and H. S. Jones, A Greek– English Lexicon, Oxford, 9th ed., 1925–40 ed. Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta, 2 vols., Stuttgart, 1935 Martin McNamara’s translations, introductions and apparatus to Codex Neofiti: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, 4 vols., Edinburgh, 1992–95 J. H. Moulton, W. F. Howard and N. Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Edinburgh: I by J. H. Moulton (1906); II by W. F. Howard (1929): III and IV by Nigel Turner (1963 and 1976) J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources, London, 1930 eds. Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger and Allen Wikgren, Novum Testamentum Graece post Nestle communiter, Stuttgart, 26th ed., 1979 eds. Barbara and Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo Martini and Bruce M. Metzger, Novum Testamentum Graece post Nestle communiter, Stuttgart, 27th ed., 1993 New American Bible, 1970 New International Version, 1995 marginal note to NIV New Jerusalem Bible, 1985 Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum, Supplement Series New Revised Standard Version, 1989 marginal note to NRSV eds. E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher, The New Testament Apocrypha, 2 vols., London, 1963–65

ABBREVIATIONS

NTD NtlAbh NTVoc OTP PG PGL PL Quasten RB REB RHE RHPR RScPhT RSR RSV RThom RTP RV RVmg SB SBLDS SBLSS SC ScEs Schürer

SEÅ SMTNTG SNTSMS SNTU TB TCGNT TDOT Thayer ThHKNT

xix

Das Neue Testament Deutsch Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen F. Neirynck, F. Van Segbroeck and H. Leclerc, New Testament Vocabulary, BETL 65, Louvain, 1984 ed. J. H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols., London/New York, 1983–85 ed. J.-P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, 162 vols., Paris, 1857–66 ed. G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford, 1961 ed. J.-P. Migne, Patrologia Latina, 217 vols., Paris, 1844–64 J. Quasten, Patrology, 3 vols., Utrecht, 1966 Revue Biblique The Revised English Bible, Cambridge, 1989 Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques Recherches des science religieuse, 1910– Revised Standard Version, 1946 Revue Thomist Revue de théologie et de philosophie Revised Version, 1884 marginal note to RV H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar aus Talmud und Midrasch, 6 vols., Munich, 1922–61 Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Sources chrétiennes Science et esprit Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC AD 135), rev. and ed. by G. Vermes et al., 4 vols., Edinburgh, 1973–87 Svensk exegetisk årsbok E. de W. Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, London, 2nd ed., 1893 Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt Theologische Berichte A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce M. Metzger, Stuttgart, 1971; 2nd ed., 1994 eds. G. J. Botterweck et al., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids, 1974– J. H. Thayer, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament, ed. C. L. W. Grimm, Edinburgh, 1888 Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament

xx

TLG

TR TWNT

UBS UBS3 VD Vg VL WA Wettstein WTJ WUNT ZDPV Zerwick–Smith ZNW

JOHN 1–4

Thesaurus Linguae Graecae CD Rom #D, Irvine, 1992; cf. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. Canon of Greek Authors and Works, eds. L. Berkowitz et al., Oxford, 1990 Theologische Rundschau eds. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, 11 vols., Stuttgart, 1933–37 United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, 3rd ed., 1975 Verbum Domini Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem recensuit Robertus Weber, 2 vols., Stuttgart, 1969 Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel, 1949– M. Luther, Kritische Gesamtausgabe (= Weimar Ausgabe), 1883–1983 J. J. Wettstein, Novum Testamentum Graecum, 2 vols., Graz, 1962 (1751–52) Westminster Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästinavereins M. Smith, Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples, ed. J. Smith, Rome, 1963 Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The bibliography that follows is divided into five major sections, and gives full references for literature cited in the footnotes in abbreviated form: I. The Greek Text of John’s Gospel II. Surveys and Lists of Monographs and Articles III. Commentaries IV. General Bibliography V. Bibliography for sub-sections of John 1–4: (i) The Prologue: 1.1-18 (ii) The Witness of John the Baptist: 1.19-34 (iii) The Calling and Testimony of the First Disciples: 1.35-51 (iv) The Son of Man: 1.51 and 3.13, 14 (v) The Wedding at Cana in Galilee: 2.1-12 (vi) The New Temple: 2.13-22 (vii) Nicodemus: 2.23–3.21 (viii) John the Baptist: 3.22-36 (ix) The Samaritan Woman: 4.1-45 (x) The Roman Centurion: 4.46-54

xxi xxii xxiii xxv xxxi xxxi xxxiii xxxiii xxxiv xxxv xxxvi xxxvi xxxviii xxxviii xl

In a category of its own for research on John’s Gospel is: eds. U. Schnelle et al., Neuer Wettstein: Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus, Band 1/2 Texte zum Johannesevangelium, Berlin, 2001. I. THE GREEK TEXT OF JOHN’S GOSPEL Aland, B., et al., Novum Testamentum Graece, Stuttgart, 27th ed., 1993 (= NA27). [26th ed., 1979 = NA 26] Aland, K., et al., The Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, New York/London, 3rd ed., 1975 (= UBS 3). In the 4th ed. of 1994, the Greek text is unchanged; the apparatus has been revised. Comfort, P. W., ‘The Greek Text of the Gospel of John according to the Early Papyri’, NTS 36 (1990), 625-29. Elliott, J. K., A Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts, Cambridge, 2nd ed., 2000. Elliott, W. J., and D. C. Parker, The New Testament in Greek. IV. The Gospel according to St John: The Papyri, Leiden, 1995.

xxii

JOHN 1–4

Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, Stuttgart, 1971; 2nd ed., 1994 (= TCGNT). Schmid, U. B., with W. J. Elliott and D. C. Parker, The New Testament in Greek. IV. The Gospel according to St John: The Majuscules, Leiden, 2007. Tischendorf, Constantin von, Novum Testamentum Graece. Editio octava maior, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1869–72; vol. 3, ed. C. R. Gregory, Leipzig, 1894. Vogels, H. J., ed. Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine. Dusseldorf, 1922. II. SURVEYS AND LISTS OF MONOGRAPHS AND ARTICLES Becker, J., ‘Aus der Literatur zum Johannesevangelium (1978–1980)’, TR 47 (1982), 279-301, 305-47. —‘Das Johannesevangelium im Streit der Methoden (1980–1984)’, TR 51 (1986), 1-78. Haenchen E., ‘Aus der Literatur zum Johannesevangelium 1929–1956’, TR NS (1955), 295-335. Haldimann, K., and H. Weder, ‘Aus der Literatur zum Johannesevangelium 1985–1994’, TR 67 (2002), 328-48, 425-56; 69 (2004), 75-115; 71 (2006), 91-113. Kealy, S. P., John’s Gospel and the History of Biblical Interpretation, 2 vols., Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter, 2002. Kysar, R., ‘The Fourth Gospel. A Report on Recent Research’, in eds. H. Temporini and W. Haase, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, II.25.3, Berlin/New York, 1985, 2389-480. —‘The Gospel of John in Current Research’, RSR 9 (1983), 314-23. Malatesta, E., St John’s Gospel, 1920–1965: A Cumulative and Classified Bibliography of Books and Periodical Literature on the Fourth Gospel, Rome, 1967. Mills, W. E., The Gospel of John, Bibliographies for Biblical Research, New Testament Series 4, Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter, 1995. Rábanos, E. R., and D. Muñoz León, Bibliografía Joánica: Evangelo, Cartas y Apocalipsis 1960–1986, Bibliotheca Hispana Biblica 14, Madrid, 1990. Sloyan, G. S., What are They Saying about John? Johannine Scholarship 1965–2005, rev. ed., New York, 2006. Smalley S. S., ‘The Johannine Literature: A Sample of Recent Studies in English’, Theology 103 (2000), 13-28. Thyen, H., ‘Aus der Literatur zum Johannesevangelium’, TR 39 (1974–75), 1-69, 222-52, 289-330; 42 (1977), 211-70; 43 (1978), 329-59; 44 (1979), 97-134; 47 (1982), 279-301. Van Belle, G., Johannine Bibliography 1966–1985, BETL 82, Leuven, 1988. Wagner, G., An Exegetical Bibliography of the New Testament: John and 1, 2, 3 John, Macon, GA, 1987.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

xxiii

Three journals regularly list new books and articles: Elenchus of Biblical Bibliography, Rome. Internationale Zeitschriftenschau für Bibelwissenschaften und Grenzgebieten, ed. Bernhard Lang, Düsseldorf. New Testament Abstracts, Cambridge, MA. III. COMMENTARIES Barclay, W., The Gospel of John, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1956. Barrett, C. K., The Gospel according to St John, London, 2nd ed., 1978. Bauer, W., Das Johannesevangelium, Tübingen, 2nd ed., 1925. Becker, J., Das Evangelium des Johannes, 2 vols., Gütersloh, 1979, 1981. Bengel, J. A., Gnomon Novi Testamenti, Tübingen, first of many editions, 1742. Bernard, J. H., The Gospel according to St John, ed. A. H. Mc Neile, ICC, 2 vols., London, 1928. Boismard, M.-E., and A. Lamouille, L’Évangile de Jean, Paris, 1977. Brodie, T. L., The Gospel according to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary, Oxford, 1993. Brown, R. E. The Gospel according to John, 2 vols., New York, 1966–70. Bruce, F. F., The Gospel of John, Basingstoke, 1983. Büchsel, F., Das Evangeliums nach Johannes, NTD 4, Göttingen, 1949. Bultmann, R., The Gospel of John, ETr, Oxford, 1971. Burge, G. M., John, NIV Application Commentary, Grand Rapids, 2000. Calvin, J., The Gospel according to St John, 2 vols., 1553; ETr, London, 1959. Carson, D. A., The Gospel according to John, Leicester/Grand Rapids, 1991. Dietzfelbinger, C., Das Evangelium nach Johannes, Züricher Bibelkommentare, 2 vols., Zürich, 2001. Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge, 1953. Edwards, M., John, Blackwell Bible Commentaries, Oxford, 2004. Ellis, P. F., The Genius of John: A Composition-Critical Commentary on the Fourth Gospel, Collegeville, 1984. Gnilka, J., Johannesevangelium, Würzburg, 1983. Godet, F., Commentary on the Gospel of St John, 3 vols., Edinburgh, 1899– 1900. Grundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Johannes, Berlin, 1968. Haenchen, E., Das Johannesevangelium, ed. U. Busse, Tübingen, 1980; ETr, Hermeneia, 2 vols., Philadelphia, 1984. Holtzmann, H. J., Evangelium, Briefe und Offenbarung des Johannes, 3rd ed., Tübingen, 1908. Hoskyns, E. C., The Fourth Gospel, ed. F. N. Davey, London, 1947. Howard, W. F., The Gospel according to John, Interpreter’s Bible 8, Nashville and New York, 1952. Keener, C. S., The Gospel of John, 2 vols., Peabody, 2003.

xxiv

JOHN 1–4

Köstenberger, A. J., John, Grand Rapids, 2004. Kruse, C. G., The Gospel according to John, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Grand Rapids/Cambridge, 2004. Lagrange, M. J., Évangile selon St John, Paris, 1948. Lightfoot, R. H., St John’s Gospel: A Commentary, ed. C. F. Evans, Oxford, 1956. Lincoln, A. T., The Gospel according to Saint John, Black’s New Testament Commentaries, London, 2005. Lindars, B., The Gospel of John, London, 1972. Loisy, A., Le quartrième évangile, Paris, 2nd ed., 1921. Macgregor, G. H. C., The Gospel of John, London, 1928. Maldonatus (Juan de Maldonado), Commentaria in Quattuor Evangelia, Pont-à-Mousson, 1596–97; see the edition by J. M. Raich, 2 vols., Mainz, 1874. Marrow, S. B., The Gospel of John: A Reading, New York, 1995. Marsh, J., Saint John, Harmondsworth, 1968. Michaels, J., John, New International Biblical Commentary 4, Peabody, 1989. Moloney, F. J., The Gospel of John, Sacra Pagina 4, Collegeville, 1998. Neyrey, J. H., The Gospel of John, New Cambridge Bible Commentary, Cambridge, 2007. Odeberg, H., The Fourth Gospel Interpreted in its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World, Uppsala, 1929; repr. Amsterdam, 1968. Ridderbos, H., The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary, ETr, Grand Rapids, 1997. Sanders, J. N., and B. A. Mastin, The Gospel according to St John, London, 1968. Schenke, L., Johannes. Kommentar, Düsseldorf, 1998. Schlatter, A., Der Evangelist Johannes, Stuttgart, 4th ed., 1977. Schnackenburg, R., The Gospel according to St John, 3 vols., London, 1968, 1980, 1982. Schneider, J., Das Evangelium nach Johannes, NTD 4, Göttingen, 1972. Schnelle, U., Das Evangelium nach Johannes, ThHKNT, Leipzig, 1998. Schulz, Siegfried, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, NTD 4, Göttingen, 1972. Smith, D. M., John, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries, Nashville, 1999. Stibbe, Mark W. G., John, Sheffield, 1993. Talbert, C. H., Reading John, A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles, Macon, GA, rev. ed., 2005. Thyen, H., Das Johannesevangelium, Handbuch zum Neue Testament 6, Tübingen, 2005. Wellhausen, J., Das Evangelium Johannes, Berlin, 1908. Wengst, K., Das Johannesevangelium. Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 4/1, 2 vols., Stuttgart/Berlin/Cologne, 2000, 2001. Westcott, B. F., The Gospel according to St John, 2 vols., London, 1908.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

xxv

Whiteacre, R. A., John, Downers Grove/Leicester, 1999. Wilckens, U., Das Evangeliums nach Johannes, NTD 4, Göttingen, 1998. Witherington, B., III, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel, Louisville, 1995. Zahn, T., Das Evangelium des Johannes ausgelegt, Leipzig, 5th ed., 1921. IV. GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, P. N., The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, its Unity and Disunity in the Light of John 6, WUNT 2.78, Tübingen, 1996. —The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus, London/New York, 2006. Ashton, J. A., ed., The Interpretation of John, London, 1986; 2nd ed., Edinburgh, 1997. —Studying John: Approaches to the Fourth Gospel, Oxford, 1994; 2nd ed., 2007. —Understanding the Fourth Gospel, Oxford, 1991. Attridge, H. W., ‘Genre Bending in the Fourth Gospel’, JBL 121 (2002), 3-21. Barrett, C. K., Essays on John, London, 1982. —The Gospel of John and Judaism, London, 1975. Bauckham, R. J., ‘Historiographical Characteristics of the Gospel of John’, NTS 53 (2007), 17-36. Beattie, D., and M. MacNamara, The Aramaic Bible, JSOTSup 166, Sheffield, 1994. Becker, J., ‘Die Hoffnung auf ewiges Leben im Johannesevangelium’, ZNW 91 (2000), 192-211. —Johanneisches Christentum: Seine Geschichte und Theologie im Uberblick, Tübingen, 2004. Berger, K., Die Amen-Worte Jesus. Eine Untersuchung zum Problem der Legitimation in Apokalyptischer Rede, BZNW 39, Berlin, 1970. —Im Anfang war Johannes. Datierung und Theologie des vierten Evangeliums, 2nd ed., 2003. Beutler, J., Studien zu den johanneischen Schriften, Stuttgart, 1998. Bienaimé, G., Moise et le don de l’eau dans la tradition juive ancienne: Targum et midrash, Analecta Biblica 98, Rome, 1984. Bieringer, R., et al. eds., Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel: Papers of the Leuven Colloquium 2000, Assen, 2001. Bittner, W. J., Jesu Zeichen im Johannesevangelium. Die MessiasErkenntnis im Johannesevangelium vor ihrem jüdischen Hintergrund, WUNT 2.26, Tübingen, 1987. Blank, J., Krisis. Untersuchungen zur johanneischen Christologie und Eschatologie, Freiburg, 1964. Boismard, M. E., Critique textuelle ou critique littéraire, Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 40, Paris, 1998. —‘Le disciple que Jésus aimait d’après Jn 21.1ss et 1.35ss’, RB 105 (1998), 76-80.

xxvi

JOHN 1–4

—Moise ou Jésus. Essai de christologie johannique, BETL 94, Leuven, 1988. Borgen, P., ‘God’s Agent in the Fourth Gospel’, in ed. J. Neusner, Religions in Antiquity, FS E. R. Goodenough, Leiden, 1968, 137-48. Brant, J.-A. A., Dialogue and Drama: Elements of Greek Tragedy in the Fourth Gospel, Peabody, 2004. Braun, F.-M., Jean le Théologien, Études Bibliques, 4 vols., 1959–72. Brown, R. E., The Community of the Beloved Disciple, New York, 1979. —An Introduction to the Gospel of John, ed. F. J. Moloney, New York, 2003. Brown, T. G., Spirit in the Writings of John: Johannine Pneumatology in Social-Scientific Perspective, London, 2003. Bühner, J. A., Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4. Evangelium, WUNT 2.2 Tübingen, 1977. Bultmann, R., New Testament Theology, ETr, 2 vols., London, 1952. Burge, G. M., The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Tradition, Grand Rapids, 1987. Busse, U., Das Johannesevangelium. Bildlichkeit, Diskurs und Ritual. Mit einer Bibliographie über den Zeitraum 1986–1998, BETL 162, Leuven, 2002. Campbell, J. C., Kinship Relations in the Gospel of John, CBQMS 41, Washington, DC, 2007. Casey, M., Is John’s Gospel True? London, 1996. Collins, R. F., ‘From John to the Beloved Disciple: An Essay on Johannine Characters’, Interpretation 49 (1995), 359-69. Coloe, M. L., God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel, Collegeville, 2001. Colwell, E. C., The Greek of the Fourth Gospel: A Study of the Aramaisms in the Light of Hellenistic Greek. Chicago/Cambridge, 1931. Conway, C. N., ‘Speaking through Ambiguity: Minor Characters in the Fourth Gospel’, Biblical Interpretation 10 (2002), 324-41. Coppens, J., La relève apocalpytique III: Les logia du fils de l’homme dans l’évangile johannique, Leuven, 1981. Counet, P. C., ‘Het messias geheim in Johannes: Analyse van het impliciete gebod tot zwijgen’, Tijdschrift voor Theologie 43 (2001), 253-79. Cullmann, O., The Johannine Circle, London, 1975. —Heil als Geschichte, Tübingen, 1965; ETr, Salvation in History, London, 1967. Culpepper, R. A., Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design, Philadelphia, 1983. —Johannine Literature, Sheffield New Testament Guides, Sheffield, 2000. —John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend, Edinburgh, 2nd ed., 2000. —‘The Plot of John’s Story of Jesus’, Interpretation 49 (1995), 347-58. Culpepper, R. A., and C. C. Black, eds., Exploring the Gospel of John, FS D. Moody Smith, Louisville, 1996. Dalman, G., Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramaisch, Leipzig, 1894.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

xxvii

—Sacred Sites and Ways, ETr, London, 1935. —The Words of Jesus, ETr, London, 1902. Davies, M., Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel, JSNTSup 69, Sheffield, 1992. De Jonge, M., ed., L’Évangile de Jean. Sources, redaction, théologie, BETL 44, Louvain, 1977. De la Potterie, I., La Verité dans Saint Jean, 2 vols., Rome, 1977. Diefenbach, Manfred, Der Konflikt Jesus mit den “Juden”. Eine Versuch zur Lösung der johanneischen Antijudäismus-Diskussion mit Hilfe des antiken Handlungsverständnisses, Münster, 2002. Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge, 1963. —The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge, 1953. Elliott, J. K., The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation, Oxford, 1993. Elowsky, J. C., ed., John 1–10, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament 4a, Downers Grove, 2006. Ensor, Peter W., Jesus and his “Works”: The Johannine Sayings in Historical Perspective, WUNT 2.85, Tübingen, 1996. Forestell, J. T., The Word of the Cross: Salvation as Revelation in the Fourth Gospel, Rome, 1974. Fortna, R. T., The Fourth Gospel and its Predecessor: From Narrative Source to Present Gospel, Edinburgh, 1989. —The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge, 1970. Fortna, R. T., and T. Thatcher, eds., Jesus in Johannine Tradition, Louisville, 2001. Frey, J., Die johanneische Eschatologie, I, WUNT 96, Tübingen, 1997; II, WUNT 110, 1998; III, WUNT 117, 2000. Frey, J., et al. eds., Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Language, WUNT 200, Tübingen, 2006. Frey, J., and U. Schnelle, eds., Kontexte des Johannesevangelium: Das vierte Evangelium in religions- und traditionsgeschichtliche Perspektive, WUNT 175, Tübingen, 2004. Grässer, E., ‘Die antijüdische Polemik im Johannesevangelium’, NTS 11 (1964), 74-90. Hägerland, T., ‘John’s Gospel: A Two-Level Drama?’, JSNT 25 (2003), 309-22. Hakola, R., Identity Matters: John, the Jews and Jewishness, Leiden, 2005. Hanson, A. T., The Prophetic Gospel: A Study of St John and the Old Testament, Edinburgh, 1991. Harnack, A. von, ‘Das “Wir” in den Johanneischen Schriften’, Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (1923), 96-113. Harnack-Ehrung: Beiträge zur Kirchengeschichte, FS A. Harnack, Leipzig, 1921. Harvey, A. E., Jesus on Trial: A Study in the Fourth Gospel, London, 1976. Hayward, R., Divine Name and Presence: The Memra, Totowa, NJ, 1981. Hengel, M., The Johannine Question, London, 1989.

xxviii

JOHN 1–4

Hill, C. E., The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church, Oxford/New York, 2004. Hofius, O., and H.-C. Kammler, Johannesstudien. Untersuchungen zur Theologie des vierten Evangeliums, WUNT 88, Tübingen, 1996. Howard, W. F., The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation, rev. and ed. C. K. Barrett, London, 1955. Jeremias, J., The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, ETr, London, 1966. —Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, ETr, London, 3rd ed., 1966. —The Prayers of Jesus, ETr, London, 1967. Käsemann, E., The Testament of Jesus according to John 17, ETr, London, 1968. Kim, S., The ‘Son of Man’ as the Son of God, WUNT 30, Tübingen, 1983. Köstenberger, A. J., The Missions of Jesus and the Disciples according to the Fourth Gospel, Grand Rapids, 1998. Kysar, R., The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel, Minneapolis, 1975. —Voyages with John: Charting the Fourth Gospel, Waco, 2005. Larsson, T., God in the Fourth Gospel: A Hermeneutical Study of the History of Interpretations, Coniectanea Biblica, New Testament Series 35, Stockholm, 2001. Lee, D. A., The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel: The Interplay of Form and Meaning, JSNTSup 95, Sheffield, 1994. Léon-Dufour, X., ‘Towards a Symbolic Understanding of the Fourth Gospel’, NTS 27 (1981), 439-56. Lewis, F. W., Disarrangements in the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge, 1910. Lierman, J., ed., Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John, WUNT 2.219, Tübingen, 2006. Lieu, J. M., ‘The Mother of the Son in the Fourth Gospel’, JBL 117 (1998), 61-77. —‘Temple and Synagogue in John’, NTS 45 (1999), 51-69. Lincoln, A. T., ‘The Beloved Disciple as Eyewitness and the Fourth Gospel as Witness’, JSNT 85 (2002), 3-26. —Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in the Fourth Gospel, Peabody, 2000. Lindars, B., Behind the Fourth Gospel, London, 1971. —Essays on John, ed. C. M. Tuckett, Leuven, 1992. Lingad, C. G., The Problems of Jewish Christians in the Johannine Community, Rome, 2001. Maccini, R. G., Her Testimony is True, JSNTSup 125, Sheffield, 1996. Malina, Bruce J., The Gospel of John in Socio-Linguistic Perspective, ed. H. Waetjen, Berkeley, 1985. Martyn, J. L., History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, Nashville, 2nd ed., 1979. McGrath, J. F., John’s Apologetic Christology. Legitimation and Development in Johannine Christology, SNTSMS 111, Cambridge, 2001. McHugh, J., ‘“In Him was Life”: John’s Gospel and the Parting of the Ways’, in ed. J. D. G. Dunn, Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways AD 70 to 135, WUNT 66, Tübingen, 1992, 123-58. —The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament, London, 1975.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

xxix

Meeks, W. A., ‘The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism’, JBL 91 (1972), 44-72. —The Prophet-King, Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology, Leiden, 1967. Menken, M. J. J., ‘Observations on the Significance of the Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel’, Neotestamentica 33 (1999), 125-43. Metzner, R., Das Verständnis der Sünde im Johannesevangelium, WUNT 122, Tübingen, 2000. Miranda, J., Der Vater, der mich gesandt hat, Bern/Frankfurt am Main, 1972. Moloney, F. J., ‘The Fourth Gospel and the Jesus of History’, NTS 46 (2000), 42-58. —The Gospel of John: Text and Context, Biblical Interpretation 72, Boston/ Leiden, 2005. —‘Raymond Brown’s New Introduction to the Gospel of John: A Presentation—and Some Questions’, CBQ 65 (2003), 1-21. Motyer, S., ‘Method in Fourth Gospel Studies: A Way Out of the Impasse?’, JSNT 66 (1997), 27-44. —Your Father the Devil? A New Approach to John and ‘the Jews’, Carlisle, 1997. Moule, C. F. D., ‘The Individualism of the Fourth Gospel’, NovT 5 (1962), 171-90. Mussner, Franz, ZWH: Die Anschauung vom “Leben” im vierten Evangelium, unter Berücksichtigung der Johannesbriefe. Munich, 1952. Mutschler, B., Das Corpus Johanneum bei Irenaeus von Lyon, WUNT 189, Tübingen, 2006. Neirynck, F., ‘The Question of John and the Synoptics: D. Moody Smith 1992–1999’, ETL 76 (2000), 122-32. Ng, W.-Y., Water Symbolism in John: An Eschatological Interpretation, Studies in Biblical Interpretation 15, New York/Bern, 2001. Nissen, J., and S. Pedersen, eds. New Readings in John. Literary and Theological Perspectives: Essays from the Scandinavian Conference on the Fourth Gospel in Aarhus 1997, JSNTSup 182, Sheffield, 1999. Obermann, A., Die christologische Erfüllung der Schrift im Johannesevangelium, Eine Untersuchung zur johanneischen Hermeneutik anhand der Schriftzitate, WUNT 2.83, Tübingen, 1996. Okure, T., The Johannine Approach to Mission: A Contextual Study of John 4.1-42, WUNT 2.31, Tübingen, 1988. Olsson, B., Structure and Meaning in the Fourth Gospel: A Text-Linguistic Analysis of John 2:1-11 and John 4:1-43, Lund, 1974. Pagels, E. H., ‘Exegesis of Genesis 1 in the Gospels of Thomas and John’, JBL 118 (1999), 477-96. Painter, J., The Quest for the Messiah: The History, Literature and Theology of the Johannine Community, Edinburgh, 1991. Pancaro, S., The Law in the Fourth Gospel, Leiden, 1975. Rese, M., ‘Das Selbstzeugnis des Johannesevangelium über seinen Verfasser’, ETL 72 (1996), 75-111.

xxx

JOHN 1–4

Salier, W. H., The Rhetorical Impact of the Semeia in the Gospel of John, WUNT 186, Tübingen, 2004. Sanders, J. N., The Fourth Gospel and the Early Church, Cambridge, 1943. Schneiders, S. M., Written that You May Believe: Encountering Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, New York, 1999. Schnelle, U., Antidocetic Christology in the Gospel of John: An Investigation of the Place of the Fourth Gospel in the Johannine School, ETr, Minneapolis, 1992. Scholtissek, K., ‘Eine Renaissance des Evangeliums nach Johannes. Aktuelle Perspektiven der exegetische Forschung’, Theologische Revue 97 (2001), 267-88. Schröder, J.-M., Das eschatologische Israel im Johannesevangelium. Eine Untersuchung der johanneischen Israel-Konzeption in Joh 2–4 und Joh 6, Tübingen/Basel, 2003. Schweizer, E., EGO EIMI. Die religionsgeschichtliche Herkunft und theologische Bedeutung der johanneischen Bildreden, Göttingen, 1939, 2nd ed., 1964. Segovia, F. F., ed., “What is John?” Readers and Readings of the Fourth Gospel, SBLSS 7, Atlanta, 1996. Smalley, S. S., John: Evangelist and Interpreter, Exeter, 1978; 2nd ed., 1998. Smith, D. M., Johannine Christianity: Essays on its Setting, Sources, and Theology, Colombia, 1984. —John among the Gospels, 2nd ed., Columbia, 2001. —The Theology of the Gospel of John, Cambridge, 1994. Söding, T., ‘“Was kann aus Nazareth schon Gutes kommen?” (Joh 1,46). Die Bedeutung des Judenseins Jesu im Johannesevangelium’, NTS 46 (2000), 21-41. Staley, J. L., The Print’s First Kiss: A Rhetorical Investigation of the Implied Reader in the Fourth Gospel, SBLDS 82, Atlanta, 1988. Stibbe, M. W. G., John as Storyteller: Narrative Criticism and the Fourth Gospel, SNTSMS 73, Cambridge, 1992. Stibbe, M. W. G., ed., The Gospel of John as Literature, Leiden, 1993. Teeple, H. M., The Literary Origin of the Gospel of John, Evanston, 1974. Thompson, M. M. T., The Incarnate Word: Perspectives on Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, Peabody, 1993. Thüsing, W., Die Erhöhung und Verherrlichung Jesu im Johannesevangelium, Ntl Abh., 21, Münster, 1960; 3rd ed., 1979. Tolmie, D. F., ‘The Characterization of God in the Fourth Gospel’, JSNT 69 (1998), 57-75. Van Belle, G., et al. eds., Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by the Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar, BETL 184, Leuven, 2005. Wahlde, U. C. von, ‘“The Jews” in the Gospel of John: Fifteen Years of Research (1983–1998)’, ETL 76 (2000), 30-55. Watt, Jan G. van der, ‘Ethics and Ethos in the Gospel according to John’, ZNW 97 (2006), 147-76.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

xxxi

Westermann, C., Das Johannesevangelium aus der Sicht des Alten Testament, Stuttgart, 1994. Williams, C. H., ‘I am He’: The Interpretation of sevo" e[dwken hJmi'n), Pirke Aboth 1.1 and Siphre Deut 31.4 § 305 (‘Blessed be God who gave the Law to Israel through Moses our teacher’). It is a gift given through (not by) Moses (compare Acts 7.53). In this clause John writes ejdovqh, because the Law was a gift received by a servant to pass on to those for whom it was intended; but in the parallel, 17b, he writes ejgevneto, which implies the sovereign authority (basilevw" meta; ejxousiva") of Jesus Christ (Chrysostom). ‘Mosis non sua est lex: Christi sua est gratia et veritas’ (Bengel). hJ cavri" kai; hJ ajlhvqeia. In ∏66 it syh**, dev is inserted before, and in W after, cavri". This reading implies a certain tension between Church and synagogue; more significant is the negligible attestation in favour of it. The lack of support for dev only confirms the interpretation of v. 16 as indicating not the replacement of one grace by another, but the continuity in God’s bestowal of grace; it also justifies the cautionary remarks about hostility to the Old Law which are set out in the comment on oJ novmo" at

The immutable unwritten laws of Heaven. They were not born today nor yesterday; They die not; and none knoweth whence they sprang. (Sophocles, Antigone 453-57. Translation by F. Storr in the Loeb edition.) 53 It is unfortunate that so many European languages translate the term as law, loi, Gesetz, legge, ley, thus giving the impression that the Torah is akin to what Europeans call ‘statute law’. English cannot avoid this, but other languages are more fortunate, and have less excuse. ‘Torah’ would be more adequately rendered into Latin etc. by ius, droit, Recht, diritto, derecho, words which denote a corpus of legislation that includes, and is based upon, carefully defined fundamental principles of jurisprudence. Statute law is variable to an extent that ius, droit, Recht etc. are not. 54 ‘Non erat ista [gratia] in Veteri Testamento, quia lex minabatur, non opitulabatur; iubebat, non sanabat; langorem ostendebat, non auferebat: sed ille [Dominus] praeparabat medico venturo cum gratia et veritate’ (In Ioannem III 14). Contrast Chrysostom (on 16b): Kai; ga;r ta; tou' novmou kai; aujta; cavrito" h\n .

1.14-18

69

1.16. For hJ cavri" kai; hJ ajlhvqeia, see on v. 14e. This is the last occurrence of the word cavri" in the Fourth Gospel. dia; ÆIhsou' Cristou'. The only other occurrence of the proper name ‘Jesus Christ’ is at 17.3, where the words are almost certainly a late addition to the text. If we discount this instance in 17.3, the formula in 20.31 (‘that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ’), taken in conjunction with the wording here in 1.17b, may well represent an inclusio embracing the entire Gospel, in which the reader is at the end invited to profess faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, through whom (diav) the grace and truth promised in the Old Covenant were brought into being (ejgevneto). See the comments above on ejdovqh in this verse, on ejgevneto in 1.3 (p. 12), and on the variant reading o} gevgonen ejn aujtw'/ zwh; h\n (pp. 14-15). 18a. qeo;n oujdei;" eJwvraken pwvpote. Four words, which could stand in any sequence, are here skilfully ordered, closing the Prologue with supreme economy. As in 18b, any conjunction would have weakened, probably destroyed, the strength of this verse. The absence of the article before qeovn implies that no one had ever (previously) seen God qua God,55 though they might have ‘seen’ him under shadows and figures at Mamre, at the burning bush, or in a vision (Gen 18; Exod 3; Isa 6). That is, no one had ever seen and known God in the way one knows oneself or another human being (cf. Exod 33.18-20). Contrast the past tense in 1 Jn 4.12 (qeo;n oujdei;" pwvpote teqevatai) with the future tense in 1 Jn 3.2 (o{moioi aujtw'/ ejsovmeqa, o{ti ojyovmeqa aujto;n kaqwv" ejstin) and with 1 Cor 13.12. J. H. Moulton calls the perfect with pwvpote (1.18; 5.37; 8.33) ‘an aoristic perfect of unbroken continuity’ (MHT I 144; see also III 68f. 84). The sense is therefore that no one has ever, here on earth, seen God directly, face to face, in his divinity, though Christians see God’s glory indirectly, in the humanity of the Word made flesh. See above on 14cd and compare 2 Cor 4.6 on the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. 18b. The evidence for the text of 18b is very finely balanced between monogenh;" qeov" (UBS3 and NA27), and oJ monogenh;" uiJov" (Tischendorf and von Soden). The former is preferred by the editors of the UBS 3 and NA27 on the ground that it has earlier and better support among the Greek MSS of the Gospel, although o m. q., with the article, is much better attested among the early Fathers. The latter, oJ monogenh;" uiJov", is the reading most widely attested among the totality of the MSS, the versions and the Fathers. Schnackenburg and Barrett rightly comment that the sense is substantially unaltered whether one reads oJ monogenh;" qeov" or oJ monogenh;" uiJov" (both prefer the former, not least because of ∏66.75). The shortest reading (oJ monogenhv"), though not accepted by any 55

See the comment of J. H. Moulton at 14d.

70

JOHN 1–4

of the major modern editions of the Greek NT, has much to commend it (see UBS). For the detail, see Excursus IV, ‘Longer Notes on Textual Criticism 3’, and the comment on monogenou'" para; patrov" under 1.14d. If monogenh;" qeov" (without the article) is accepted as the reading, the most accurate translation would be someone quite unique, and divine (so The Translator’s NT, 1973, 452); if the article is included, one might say the one and only God (unicus deus). If oJ monogenhv" uiJov" is preferred, the translation would be the one and only Son (cf. RSV, the only Son). If oJ monogenhv" is accepted, then the entire clause may be translated, with due respect for English idiom, by transposing ejkei'no" to the beginning of the clause, and using an adverb, utterly, to ensure that the force of the article be not lost. Accordingly, that utterly unique One is the version used above on p. 49; the present writer’s second choice would be that one and only Son. oJ w]n eij" to;n kovlpon tou' patrov". Though it is often said that ‘in the Koine eij" and ejn are freely interchanged’, this does not apply to all NT books: in Matthew, in the Pauline and Johannine epistles, and in Revelation, the old classical distinction between eij" and ejn is still very much alive (MHT III 254-57; BDF 205-206). Also, we may add, in John, and the distinction is particularly significant in this text. In the major modern English versions the lemma is rendered: (i) ‘which/who is in the bosom of the Father’ (AV = KJV RV RSV); (ii) ‘who is at the Father’s side’ (NIV NAB); (iii) ‘who is nearest to the Father’s heart’ (NEB REB JB); (iv) ‘who is close to the Father’s heart’ (NJB NRSV). Option (i) is clearly based on the assumption that in this verse eij" is equivalent to ejn, which is how the Latin versions understood it (in sinu patris). The other renderings, made after 1950, when NT scholarship had become more sensitive to the distinction between the two prepositions, avoid ‘in’. Indeed, (iii) and (iv) gently hint that eij" here connotes more than close physical presence together, which is the sense of ejn tw'/ kovlpw/ in 13.23.56 The metaphor is frequent in the OT to describe the most intimate of human relationships: it is used of marriage (Deut 13.7 [6]; 28.54, 56 etc.), of mother and child (1 Kgs 3.20; 17.19), and of God’s care for Israel (Num 11.12: for further detail see Schnackenburg). Here in Jn 1.18 the phrase is probably intended to answer to the words ejn ajrch'/ h\n oJ lovgo" pro;" to;n qeovn: just as the pre-Incarnate Logos was, in the beginning, very close to God (see on 1b), so the utterly unique human individual, Jesus Christ, is at the end described as being permanently (oJ w[n) eij" to;n kovlpon tou' patrov". What exactly does this phrase mean? 56 Compare the distinction between eij" to;n kovlpon ÆAbraavm and ejn toi'" kovlpoi" aujtou', Lk 16.22-23. One may note also that it would be a mistake to read into the replacement of the word bosom by side or heart anything more than the updating of an obsolescent metaphor.

1.14-18

71

The Greek Fathers (Chrysostom, Theophylactus, Theodore of Mopsuestia) and several Latin writers (Marius Victorinus, Thomas Aquinas, Maldonatus) interpret the phrase as referring to the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. Augustine gives a psychologizing interpretation, which was to become common in the Middle Ages: the Son knows the secrets of the Father, and can therefore reveal them. 57 Both types of interpretation assume that the verse refers to intra-trinitarian relationships, and that the preposition eij" means in. De la Potterie, with a number of (mostly French) writers, has argued for the translation, qui est tourné vers le sein du Père, meaning that Jesus during his earthly life was ever attentive to, and responsive to, the love of the Father. 58 In the second edition of the French Bible de Jérusalem (1973) this translation replaces dans le sein du Père of the 1956 edition. The most satisfactory interpretation, however, is to take oJ w]n eij" to;n kovlpon tou' patrov" as referring to the return of Jesus Christ into the bosom of the Father. This interpretation, formerly upheld by B. Weiss, H. J. Holtzmann, Zahn, Tillmann, Thüsing etc., has been newly presented by René Robert.59 Robert reasons that Greek provides many examples of a verb followed by eij" which express situation in a place and thereby imply a preceding movement to that place. The construction is both classical, and common.60 There is a fine example in Xenophon (Anabasis I ii 2), parh'san eij" Savrdei", which is neatly rendered they presented themselves at Sardis.61 Compare Jn 21.4 (‘Jesus stood on [eij"] the shore’).62 No one denies that one of the central themes of John is that Jesus, when his earthly mission is accomplished, will return to heaven, whence he came (3.13; 6.62; 8.21), to the Father who sent him (7.33; 13.1, 3; 16.5; 17.11, 13), there to be glorified with the glory which he had before the world was, with the Father (17.5). Indeed, in John, this is the only message which the risen Jesus gives to Mary Magdalen (20.7). It makes excellent sense therefore to translate oJ w]n eij" to;n kovlpon tou' patrov" as who is now returned into the bosom of the Father, thus not 57 Quid est, in sinu Patris? In secreto Patris…secretum Patris sinus Patris vocatur ( in loco). This was the interpretation accepted by J. H. Bernard. 58 This is the sense which de la Potterie gives also to pro;" to;n qeovn in 1.1b. See ‘L’emploi de eij" dans S. Jean et ses incidences théologiques’, Biblica 43 (1962), 366-87, and also in La Vérité, 228-39. 59 ‘Celui qui est de retour dans le sein du Père (Jean 1,18)’, Revue Thomiste 85 (1985), 457-63. 60 W. W. Goodwin, A Greek Grammar, 1205.1, cites Thucydides I 96, aiJ xuvnodoi ej" to; iJero;n ejgivgnonto (i.e. involving the idea of going into the temple to hold the synods), and other examples. See also LSJ s.v. parei'nai I 5 = to arrive at. Abel, Grammaire §48 c Rem. II, instances Mk 13.3, kaqhmevnou aujtou' eij" to; ÒOro" tw'n ÆElaiw'n, Heb 11.9, pivstei parwv/khsen eij" gh'n th'" ejpaggeliva", tc. 61 The translation given by Carlton L. Brownson in the Loeb edition (1921). 62 And what we may call a reverse example in Jn 20.7, cwri;" ejntetuligmevnon eij" e{na tovpon, ‘rolled up [and put] into a separate place’. See JG 2305-309.

72

JOHN 1–4

only giving an inclusio with pro;" to;n qeovn in 1.1b, but also, perhaps, recalling to the reader the prophetic word of Isa 55.10-11. One serious objection to this interpretation is that it is nowhere found in the Greek Fathers. At this point Origen is not extant, but Chrysostom in his commentary and elsewhere, while citing the lemma as eij" to;n kovlpon, always interprets it as equivalent to ejn tw'/ kovlpw'/; and Cyril does likewise. Both Chrysostom and Cyril, and their contemporaries (Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius) appear to have understood the two Greek phrases as synonymous, as indeed they had by their time become. So did the Latin versions, which, without exception, render qui est in sinu patris.63 But if the evangelist in his day used eij" and ejn with different meanings, then subsequent writers, by not adverting to this, would have misinterpreted this text; and there is much evidence to support the view that John did distinguish between eij" and ejn.64 Another important proposal concerning this lemma must be mentioned.65 If in the Prologue the term Logos is equivalent to the Memra, may not the words oJ w[n in v. 18 be a conscious allusion to Exod 3.15, ‘He Who Is’? The same participle occurs with this sense in the book of Revelation (1.4, 8; 4.8; 11.17; 16.5), though with reference to the Lord God, not to Jesus Christ. There are, however, in John’s Gospel four verses where ejgwv eijmi is used absolutely, of Jesus Christ, and without any grammatical complement, namely Jn 8.24, 28, 58 and 13.19. In three of these (8.24, 28; 13.19) the words o{ti ejgwv eijmi clamour to be interpreted against the background of Isa 43.10 (LXX) which in turn points back unmistakably to the revelation in Exod 3.15. 66 This is why, in each of these cases, the AV = KJV RV and RSV translate o{ti ejgwv eijmi as ‘that I am he’, the NEB and REB, ‘that I am what I am’. The awesome implication of these words becomes fully transparent only when the rendering of o{ti ejgwv eijmi makes the cross-reference to Exodus abundantly clear, e.g. that I am He Who Is.67 Consequently, if the term Logos in the Prologue does represent the concept of Memra, the possibility that the words oJ w]n at 1.18 are an allusion to ‘He Who Is’ should not be too 63 The patristic references, both Greek and Latin, are most readily accessible in Tischendorf 8a. 64 Compare JG 2305-308 and 2706-13 passim. On the equivalence of eij" and ejn, see MHT I 62-63 and 234-35, and Robertson, Grammar, 591-92. 65 L. Devillers, ‘Exégèse et théologie de Jean 1.18’, Revue Thomiste 89 (1989), 181217. 66 Isa 43.10-11 reads in the LXX: gevnesqev moi mavrture", kajgw; mavrtu", levgei kuvrio" oJ qeov", kai; oJ pai'", o}n ejxelexavmhn, i{na gnw'te kai; pisteuvshte kai; sunh'te o{ti ejgwv eijmi, e[mprosqevn mou oujk ejgevneto a[llo" qeo;" kai; metÆ ejme; oujk e[stai: ejgw; oJ qeov", kai; oujk e[stin pavrex ejmou' swv/zwn. pisteuvein o{ti ejgwv eijmi occurs in Jn 8.24 and 13.19, gnw'nai o{ti in 8.28. 67 Jesus’ statement is then so apparently blasphemous that on each occasion he immediately affirms that the Father is on his side (‘I do nothing on my own authority, and he who sent me is with me’, 8.28-29; ‘he who receives me receives him who sent me’, 13.20). Cf. Dodd, Interpretation, 95-96.

1.14-18

73

hastily discounted, for there is much patristic evidence which identifies the Word, the revealer on earth of the invisible Father, with the one who spoke from the burning bush.68 Though, in the present writer’s opinion, the primary sense of the phrase oJ w]n ktl. refers to the return of the monogenhv" into the glory of the Father, this does not exclude the possibility that the same words may hold a secondary meaning also, which, though not evident at first reading, will disclose itself to the reader who comes to understand the deepest truth of the Gospel (cf. Jn 20.28, 31). John 1.18b could then be turned into English as ‘that utterly unique One [or: that one and only Son], He Who Is now returned into the bosom of the Father…’ ejkei'no" ejxhghvsato. The English versions cited above under 18b render these words as (i) ‘hath declared him’ (AV = KJV RV); (ii) ‘has made him known’ (RSV NRSV NEB REB NIV JB NJB); (iii) ‘has revealed him’ (NAB). The second version has a clear over-all majority, and the third is apparently a rank outsider. The original, and etymologically self-evident, meaning of ejxhgei'sqai is to lead, but this sense, though frequent in Classical Greek (LSJ), is, according to the lexicons, found nowhere in the LXX, the NT or cognate literature (BDAG). This last statement has recently been challenged. In the NT, the verb occurs six times, five in the Lukan writings (at Lk 24.35; Acts 10.8; 15.11, 14; 21.19), and once here, in Jn 1.18. It is generally agreed that in the Greek of NT times, the verb ejxhgei'sqai is used in three senses. It can mean to recount, relate, report, describe, explain, and this is the sense usually assigned to it in the five Lukan texts 68 Justin may be a witness to a tradition of Palestinian, perhaps even of Samaritan, origin, when in terms reminiscent of Jn 1.14, 18, he links the invisible nature of the Father and the Incarnation of the Son with the episode in Exod 3.14-15. ‘Neither Abraham nor Isaac nor Jacob, nor any other of humankind has seen the Father who is both the ineffable Lord of all things without exception (aJplw'") and of Christ himself…whom the Father decreed should be begotten of the Virgin, and who once, long ago (povte) became fire in order to speak to Moses out of the bush’ (Dial. 127, 4; also in 128, 1). Similarly, in 1 Apol. 62, 3 we read that ‘our Christ conversed with Moses in the form of fire from a bush’ (ejn ijdeva/ puro;" ejk batou' proswmivlhsen aujtw'/ oJ hJmevtero" Cristov"), and in 63, 7, that ‘an angel of the Lord spoke to Moses in flames of fire from the bush, and said, I am He Who Is, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob…’, an idea repeated in 63.17. Irenaeus too makes the connection between the Word and the text of Exod 3.14, in his Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, chs. 2 and 46; this connection is all the more significant since elsewhere he ascribes and applies the phrase ‘He Who Is’ both to the Father and to the Son, and equally to each (Adv. Haer. III 6 2). Devillers refers (Revue Thomiste 89 [1989], 195-99) to two surveys of patristic usage, one by M. Harl, ‘Citations et commentaires d’Exode 3.14 chez les Pères grecs des quatre premiers siècles’, in Dieu et l’Etre, Exégèse d’Exode 3.14 et de Coran 20.11-24, Paris, 1978, 87108, the other by G. Madec, ‘“Ego sum qui sum’ de Tertullien à Jérôme”’, in the same work, 121-39. One example, from Ambrose, must suffice: ‘non Pater in rubo, non Pater in eremo, sed Filius Moysi locutus est’.

74

JOHN 1–4

just mentioned. It is frequently used, as in Classical Greek, as a technical term meaning to reveal, to impart to initiates officially the secrets of the mystery-religions.69 In Josephus, it is used with the sense to interpret the Law (War I 649; 2.162; Ant. XVIII 81). See LSJ and BDAG. All three usages would sit well with the preaching activity of the historical Jesus as described in our extant sources. In 1977 de la Potterie challenged the accuracy of these common interpretations of the verb when they are applied to Jn 1.18. 70 The first sense, correct for Luke, he judges inadequate for John. The second and the third he finds oversimplified, alleging that they are uncritically reliant on a number of classical texts which have been regularly repeated since Wettstein (1751).71 His criticism is that neither the noun ejxhghthv", nor the verb ejxhgei'sqai is ever found in Classical Greek with the meaning to reveal. In the classical texts quoted, wherever ejxhgei'sqai is used of the gods, it means to issue laws, to make edicts; wherever it is used of ‘exegetes’ or diviners at sanctuaries like Delphi, it means that they interpret oracles or explain the meaning of laws.72 There is no example of its ever being used to denote revealing new truths.73 The translation to reveal cannot therefore be justified in terms of, or by references to, Greek or Hellenistic religion. But, de la Potterie continued, that does not imply that ejxhgei'sqai may not in fact, bear, at Jn 1.18, the sense to reveal, provided that this is interpreted against a Hebrew background. That would be a quite acceptable rendering of Job 28.27, at the end of the passage in which the writer asks, ‘Where shall wisdom be found?’ (vv. 12-28). 74 In tovte ei\den 69 ejxhghtai; dÆ ejkalou'nto oiJ ta; peri; tw'n dioshmiwn' kai; ta; tw'n a[llwn iJerw'n didaskonte" (‘Those who teach about celestial omens and other sacred matters were called “exegetes”’): Pollux 8, 124, cited in BDAG. 70 La Vérité, 213-28. 71 Novum Testamentum Graece I 841-42. The texts are easily accessible in F. Büchsel’s article in TWNT II 910. De la Potterie lists a number of commentators, including Westcott, H. J. Holtzmann, Barrett and Brown, as upholding that the verb cannot be satisfactorily explained except by references to Greek or Hellenistic religion, while noting that others, e.g. Godet, Lagrange, Tillmann and Schnackenburg are ‘either more circumspect or even reject the connection’ (La Vérité, 215 fn. 291). 72 There are two very clear examples of this meaning in Plato, in the Republic IV 427c, and in the Laws VI 759cd. 73 On 218-19 fn. 308, he writes that the sense reveal is nowhere attested in the TLG, LSJ or any other standard Greek Lexicon, and caps this with a quotation from A.-J. Festugière: ‘Je ne connais en vérité aucun texte où ejxhgei'sqai = “donner une révélation”’, in the latter’s Observations stylistiques sur l’Evangile de S. Jean, Paris, 1974, 132. 74 Lev 14.57 is clearly irrelevant. Four other texts bear the meaning to recount, relate (Judg 7.13; 4 Kgdms 8.5; 1 Macc 3.26; 2 Macc 2.13); 1 Chr 16.24 and Job 12.8 speak of declaring God’s power or glory, which might include the secondary idea of revealing it by recounting it. So in Prov 28.13b the word confess could be construed as including revelation of one’s sins to others. But all this is scarcely ‘revelation’ in the usual theological sense of the term.

1.14-18

75

aujth;n kai; ejxhghvsato aujthvn, ejxhghvsato could well be translated as revealed or—with a weaker sense—made known. One may compare also the cognate verb ejkdihgei'sqai in Sir 18.5 (tiv~ prosqhvsei ejkdihghvsasqai ta; ejlevh aujtou'); Barrett calls attention also, and particularly, to Sir 43.31, tiv~ eJovraken aujto;n kai; ejkdihghvsetai, ‘Who has seen him and can describe him?’, to which Jn 1.18 might seem a direct answer. ejkei'no"—‘that one’, the utterly unique One (ejkei'no", particularly the resumptive ejkei'no", being frequent in John). One problem remains. The verb ejxhghvsato has no direct object. Nearly all translations supply one, usually ‘him’, that is, the Father, and it can rightly be argued that this must imply and include the Son (cf. Jn 14.5-11). Indeed, de la Potterie, in La Vérité (228) went so far as to translate 1.18b as ‘Le Fils unique, tourné vers le sein du Père, il fut, lui, la révélation’. Later, however, in response to an article by R. Robert, 75 he abandoned this interpretation, pleading instead for the meaning to walk in front, and therefore for the translation he is the one who has opened the way.76 Robert countered with a vigorous defence of what he had originally proposed: ejxhghvsato in 1.18 is intended to carry a double meaning, and to imply both to guide and to explain, just as both senses are implicit in Jn 14.6 (‘I am the way…no one comes to the Father except through me’), particularly when this verse is taken in conjunction with 14.2 (‘I am going, to prepare a place for you’). As a translation, Robert suggested it is he who was the guide—it is he who was the way, and even declared a preference (if a language cannot sustain the double meaning) for the latter.77 The double meaning would, of course, dovetail with his version of 18b (‘now returned into the bosom of the Father’). Indeed, his interpretation of the whole sentence from oJ w[n to ejxhghvsato has everything to commend it. 78 In an endeavour to capture all these nuances, the translation given above renders ejxhghvsato by three verbs: … has been our guide, and shown and led the way. If further evidence be needed to discern the evangelist’s mind, there remain the Targums. In Neofiti I, at Exod 3.14, we read: ‘And the Lord said to Moses: I am who I am. And he said: Thus shall you say to the 75 Robert argued that it is not necessary to choose between the two meanings of ejxhgei'sqai, to guide and to recount. ‘La double intention du mot final du prologue johannique’, Revue Thomiste 87 (1987), 435-41. 76 ‘“C’est lui qui a ouvert la voie”, La finale du prologue johannique’, Biblica 69 (1988), 340-70. 77 ‘Le mot final du prologue johannique. A propos d’un article récent’, Revue Thomiste 89 (1989), 279-88. 78 One may mention also that Robert has also drawn attention to a very close parallel in Plato’s Republic V, where, because of the presence of the verb to follow, the double meaning of guiding and explaining underlying ejxhgei'sqai is but thinly veiled. ÆIqi dhv, ajkolouvqhsovn moi th'/de, eja;n aujto; aJmh'/ gev ph/ iJkanw'" ejxhghswvmeqa. ‘Come, then, follow me on this line, to see if we can somehow or other explain it adequately’ (474c). See also Book IV 427c. ‘Un précedent platonicien à l’équivoque de Jean 1.18’, Revue Thomiste 90 (1990), 634-39.

76

JOHN 1–4

children of Israel: He who said and the world was from the beginning, and is to say again to it: Be!, and it will be, has sent me to you.’ 79 The echoes of Jn 1.1-3 are unmistakable, and the thought certainly matches Boismard’s vision of the return of humanity to be once more in the bosom of the Father (see Excursus I). These ideas are even more prominently marked in the same Targum at Exod 33.14: ‘The Glory of my Shekinah will accompany amongst you and will prepare a resting place for you’ (cf. Jn 14.2-3).80 The idea of the Lord’s going before Israel to prepare a resting-place for the people recurs in this Targum at Num 10.33 and Deut 1.33, where the Hebrew infinitive rWtl; (lātur), eaning literally to seek out by exploring, to scout out, is rendered in the Aramaic by the verb hnqtml (lĕmitqānāh), the literal meaning of which is to acquire, to take possession of, and therefore to prepare a place. The phrasing is particularly poignant at Deut 1.32-33, which read: ‘You did not believe in the name of the Word of the Lord your God, who led before you on the way to prepare for you a place for your encampment’.81 John 1.14, we beheld his glory, is replete with references to the memory of Israel’s experiences at Sinai, which in turn remind the reader that even after the theophany on the high mountain, there was a lifetime’s journey (‘forty years’) still to travel before the entry into the Promised Land. John 1.18 is then a declaration that, though no one has ever seen God, Jesus Christ during his earthly life has made known a God the like of whom the world had never seen, never imagined, never thought of. Like a new Moses, he leads God’s people all the way to the Promised Land; and being a far greater leader than Moses, he has himself entered into it (Jn 14.2: compare Heb 3.3–4.16; 10.11-25; 12.2, ajforw'nte" eij" to;n th'" pivstew" ajrchgo;n kai; teleiwth;n ÆIhsou'n ). The evangelist, as he was writing these last lines of the Prologue, must have been fully aware that his Gospel was quite different from any other gospel book then circulating. Towards the end, in the discourse after the supper, he justifies the inclusion of the many novel teachings in his book by declaring that Jesus had promised to send, after his departure from the earth, another Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, to lead the disciples into all truth (Jn 14.16-20, 25-26; 15.26-27; 16.7, 12-15). If therefore oJ w]n eij" to;n kovlpon tou' patrov" be translated as who is now returned to the bosom of the Father, the word ejxhghvsato must imply that all the teaching given in the Fourth Gospel, long after Jesus’ departure, by the Holy Spirit of truth, is also guaranteed by Jesus’ authority (14.25-26; 15.26-27). Only then would the disciples begin to perceive that there was a divinely willed purpose even in the apparent failure of Jesus’ life on earth.

79

ETr by McNamara, 412. ETr by McNamara, 510. 81 ETr by McNamara, 444. Compare the wording in Jn 1.12c and 14.2. 80

1.14-18

77

For the Synoptics, and for Paul, the crucifixion represents, in worldly terms, the execution of the wholly innocent Jesus, and justice therefore demands that God reverse this crime by the bodily resurrection (cf. Acts 2.22-36). But that leaves unanswered the question, ‘If God is just, why does he not restore to life all who are unjustly executed, and why does he permit them to be executed in the first place?’ The Fourth Gospel faces up to this question by boldly affirming that God so loved the world that he sent his only Son into the world, to display before the world the extent of his love (3.16). The message of John’s Gospel is that Jesus, by voluntarily embracing the Cross, 82 has offered one perfect sacrifice (17.19a: kai; uJpe;r aujtw'n ejgw; aJgiavzw ejmautovn ) which has achieved the salvation of the world (see on Jn 19.30, tetevlestai). i{{na w\sin kai; aujtoi; hJgiasmevnoi ejn ajlhqeiva/ (17.19b). Christians too are divinely called, generation after generation, to lead the world to advance out of barbarism by ‘redeeming the time’ 83 until human history reaches its close. Only someone utterly unique, He Who Is now returned into the bosom of the Father, could have shown and led the way.

kai; bastavzwn eJautw'/ to;n staurovn at 19.17. ejn sofiva/ peripatei'te pro;" tou;" e[xw to;n kairo;n ejxagorazovmenoi (Col 4.5; cf. Eph 5.16). 82 83

EXCURSUS I

THE STRUCTURE OF THE PROLOGUE

The extent of agreement or disagreement about the plan or structure of the Prologue may be readily discerned from the way in which the major editions of the Greek NT divide it. Tischendorf 8a (one paragraph, divided by capital letters)

1–5

WH (one paragraph, divided by major and minor spaces, and capitals)

1

Von Soden (one paragraph, divided by spaces and capitals) Nestle1-22 (one paragraph, divided by spaces and capitals: Nestle25, paragraph at 14)

6–8

9–18 [or: 9–14 and 15–18?] 1

2–5 6–8

9–10

11–12 14(15)–18

1–5

6–8

9–13

14

15

16–18

1–5

6–8

9–13

25§

14–17

18

Vogels (one paragraph, divided by capitals)

1–5

6–8

9–13

Merk (by paragraphs)

1–5

§ 6–8 § 9–13

§ 14–18

Bover (divided by paragraphs, and by capital at 9)

1–5

§ 6–8 9–13

§ 14–18

NA27 (by paragraphs and capitals: by space and capital at 18)

1–5

§ 6–8 § 9–13

§ 14–17

UBS3 (by paragraphs and by capital at 9, but not at 18)

1–5

§ 6–8 9–13

§ 14–18

14–18

18

1 It is unclear whether in 1.15 the initial iota of ÆIwavnnh" has an upper case solely because it is a proper name, or because it also represents the beginning of a new section (probably, one feels, the latter).

EXCURSUS I

79

It is helpful to compare also the variations between some of the major English language editions of modern times. The RV of 1881 has an undifferentiated paragraph, so that, setting aside versions by private individuals, editorial division into paragraphs began in practice with the RSV of 1946. All the divisions noted below are into paragraphs, and the versions are grouped not by date but by family. RSV (11946, 21952) NRSV (1989) NIV (1978) NEB (11961, 21970) REB (1989) JB (1966) and NJB (1985) NAB (1986) TNT = BFBS (1973) TEV = GNB (1966)

1–5 1–5 1–2 1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5

6–8 6–9 3–5 6–9 6–9 6–8 6–9 6–8 6–9

9–13 10–13 6–9 10–14 10–14 9–14 15 10–11 9–13 10–13

14–18 (= TNT) 14–18 10–13 14 15–18 15 16–18 (= REB) 15 16–18 (= NEB) 16–18 12–13 14 15–18 14–18 (= RSV) 14 15 16–18

The disagreements here mostly concern the placing of vv. 9, 14 and 15, and are of little significance. Verse 9 is essentially a connective between vv. 8 and 10, necessary to avoid confusion about the subject of the verb in v. 10 (see the commentary), but whether it is attached to v. 8 or to v. 10 is, as far as its meaning goes, irrelevant; either placing is equally satisfactory. The NEB = REB and the JB = NJB are exceptional in attaching v. 14 to the foregoing verses, for no editor of the Greek text has this arrangement; it would be interesting to know how many non-English translations arrange it so (the German Einheitsübersetzung of 1980 does). Their reason for doing so is probably to keep v. 14 with other verses of a hymn (see below), which v. 15 is certainly not. Verse 15 is clearly an interpolation, to be separated and detached (e.g. by brackets, as in the RSV and NRSV) both from what precedes and what follows. It is clear from the pattern of paragraphing that editors are in general in agreement about the broad structure of the Prologue. Given this very high measure of agreement about the structure of the Prologue as it now stands, it is somewhat surprising to discover what a wide variation exists when writers come to describe the contents of the different sections. By far the most popular description (and in the present writer’s view, rightly so) is that which sees vv. 1-5 as speaking of the primordial existence of the Logos, and of its role in creation and history, of vv. 6-13 as outlining the historical advent of the Logos into the world, and of vv. 14-18 as celebrating the Incarnation of the Logos. Others who accept this same division have seen it not as an historical progression but as three concentric circles: that is, these writers understand the Prologue as spelling out first the revelation of the Logos in general (vv. 1-5), secondly, as telling of it in greater detail by reference to John the Baptist, and to the rejection of Jesus by his contemporaries (vv. 6-13), and finally, as celebrating the blessings of faith which through the Incarnation come to believers (vv. 14-18). This is practically the opinion of Godet, except that he, with clearer logic, ends the second section at v. 11 and attaches

80

JOHN 1–4

vv. 12-13 to the third section, labelling the three sections ‘The Word– Unbelief–Faith’.2 Westcott’s quite personal analysis bespeaks a profoundly reflective theological mind, pastorally engaged. Part I consists simply of v. 1, ‘The Word in his Absolute, Eternal Being’; Part II (vv. 2-18) is entitled ‘The Word in Relation to Creation’, subdivided into the essential facts (vv. 25), the historic manifestation of the Word generally (vv. 6-13), and the Incarnation as apprehended by personal experience (vv. 14-18). Though the angle is personal, and slightly unusual, the understanding of the text is much the same as in Godet and other scholars of the age. But with Westcott’s death in 1901 (his commentary, edited posthumously by his son, did not appear until 1908), an era came to an end. The first edition of Loisy’s commentary (1903) set a new standard of acute critical observation for work on the Fourth Gospel. Its opening words affirm that the first five verses are in themselves a kind of general preface which summarizes in an abstract manner the theme of the Gospel, with the sole aim of linking it, from the start, and definitively, to the notion of the Logos, which will be mentioned only once more, later in the prologue, and never again in the body of the work. This general preface consists of ten propositions which fall into three groups, and each one of them is linked to the preceding proposition by repeating either the last word, or the most important word, of that earlier proposition (a process called, sometimes, concatenatio). In each group, the first proposition is presented as an assertion, the second as a development, and the third as a conclusion. The underlining corresponds to that of Loisy, 152. 1 ÆEn ajrch'/ h\n oJ lovgo", kai; oJ lovgo" h\n pro;" to;n qeovn, kai; qeo;" h\n oJ lovgo". 2 ou|to" h\n ejn ajrch'/ pro;" to;n qeovn . 3 pavnta diÆ aujtou' ejgevneto, kai; cwri;" aujtou' ejgevneto oujde; e{n. 4 o} gevgonen | ejn aujtw'/ zwh; h\n, kai; hJ zwh; h\n to; fw'" tw'n ajnqrwvpwn: 5 kai; to; fw'" ejn th'/ skotiva/ faivnei, kai; hJ skotiva aujto; ouj katevlaben.

(It will be observed that the connecting words of v. 2 sit rather awkwardly next to v. 1 and to v. 3: see the commentary, and see below in this excursus.) Loisy then proposes that, after this general abstract statement, vv. 6-18 represent an historical preface; the use of ejgevneto in v. 6 marks the transition to history, as in Mk 1.4 and Lk 1.5. This second section starts by setting the Baptist’s mission in the context of that of 2 French 3rd ed., 1885; ETr I (1899), 326-28, and 381-86. He supplies names, but not references, for nineteenth-century scholars advocating the views referred to in this paragraph.

EXCURSUS I

81

Jesus, first in a general way, dwelling on the unbelief of so many (vv. 613), then in a more precise way, pointing to the public manifestation of the Word made flesh (vv. 14-18). Lagrange (1925) summarizes the message of vv. 1-18 in practically the same terms, though in different words, and divides it into four parts (vv. 1-5, 6-8, 9-13, 14-18). J. H. Bernard’s work, published in 1928, one year after his death, is perhaps the first commentary (as distinct from an article) seriously to propose for examination a hypothetical reconstruction of a Logos hymn similar to those found in the Wisdom literature of the OT. Bernard suggested (pp. cxliv-cxlvii) that there was an original, pre-Gospel, hymn composed of vv. 1-5, 10-11, 14, 18. In vv. 3 and 5, the second line of a couplet repeats what has already been stated in the first line, and in vv. 4, 5, 11, and 14, an emphatic word is repeated in the following line, to give what is called in Hebrew poetry ‘climactic parallelism’ (cf. Pss 29.5; 93.3), so that the whole passage truly reads like an OT hymn in honour of the pre-existent Divine Logos. Bernard further suggested that this hymn ante-dated the Gospel, and it will be observed that the verses listed above as belonging to the original, pre-Gospel, hymn contain no mention of the historical names in the Prologue - John, Moses, Jesus Christ (in vv. 6, 15, 17), which must therefore be considered insertions by the evangelist; and that the verses omitted above contain only two parenthetical notes about the relationship between the Baptist and Jesus (vv. 6-9, 15), plus two exegetical comments, one in vv. 12-13 to correct a possible misunderstanding of v. 11, the other in vv. 16-17 to elucidate the meaning of ‘grace and truth’ in v. 14. Bernard notes that his suggested hymn does not embody argument (note the exclusion of vv. 12, 13, 16, 17) or contain the personal name of Jesus Christ. ‘It is a Logos hymn of a triumphant philosophy, directly Hebrew in origin, but reflecting the phrases which had become familiar in Greek-speaking society’ (p. cxlvi). 3 Bernard’s cautious analysis yields a hymn of great beauty and lucidity, which in no way depends on opinions derived from presuppositions of the religionsgeschichtliche school about the origins of Christianity (and indeed, of religion). In the ten years before Bernard’s commentary was published, a new era had dawned. It had long been the custom for the books of the OT, and the Synoptics, to be dissected into their purported constituent parts, and the Johannine text was now to be subjected to the same process. For the Prologue, the first impulse came, in Britain, from J. Rendel Harris (1916), whose initiative was followed by C. Cryer (1921) and C. F. Burney (1922). Rendel Harris had published in 1909 the editio princeps of the Odes of Solomon from the Syriac, and followed it with a classic edition in 1915; at that time both he, and some other scholars, were inclined to regard this work as of Jewish-Christian origin, originating perhaps as early as the first century. By 1913, Bernard had rejected this dating as too early, and argued that the Odes were in fact Christian hymns from around 3 Compare C. F. Burney’s suggestion of an Aramaic hymn, and (for that age) J. Rendel Harris’s The Origin of the Prologue to St John’s Gospel, Cambridge 1917.

82

JOHN 1–4

160–170. (It is now generally accepted that the Odes are certainly from the second century, probably from the earlier part, and of Syrian origin, with some slightly Gnostic overtones.) This background led Harris to suggest, in essays published between 1916 and 1922, 4 that the Johannine Prologue was based on a hymn to Sophia, akin to the compositions in the Odes. Though they contain ‘no avowed verbal quotations either from the OT or the NT, …the doctrine of the Logos is repeatedly dwelt on, in a way which recalls Johannine teaching’ (Bernard, cxlvi). Meantime, one group of German scholars was approaching the Bible with an understanding of the term ‘revelation’ that was very different from the meaning attached to it in traditional Christianity. The appellation of the group has never been properly anglicized, and it is still generally known either as the religionsgeschichtliche school, or as ‘the history-ofreligions school’. Its adherents hold that the entire Bible should be approached without any dogmatic principles, and should be interpreted simply by being scrutinized in its context, at that point in world history where it finds its place as an integrating part of humanity’s cultural evolution. It is in this way that God gives ‘revelation’. Rudolf Bultmann, in a Festschrift for one of the founding fathers of this school, Hermann Gunkel (1862–1932), set out to clarify the background to the Prologue of John in the light of these principles. 5 A second article (itself originally a lecture in October 1923) drew attention to a fresh source of information, the then recently published Mandaean texts. 6 Thereafter, Bultmann sought to interpret the Prologue of John not merely by examining it in the light of the books of Alexandrian Judaism, but by arguing that it was based upon a pre-Christian text (Vorlage) celebrating the mythological figure of a Logos-Redeemer. His theory is most conveniently outlined as it is presented in his commentary on John. Bultmann classifies the Prologue as ‘a piece of cultic-liturgical poetry, oscillating between the language of revelation and confession’. As a parallel to the revelation, he adduces a Naasene psalm quoted in Hippolytus, which starts with the beginning of all things, and then recounts how [Jesus] begs the Father to send him down to bring Gnosis to the suffering soul in the world.7 As a parallel to the confession, he points to texts in the 7th and 12th Odes of Solomon, which call upon the community to extol

4

The Origin of the Prologue, and ‘Athena Sophia and the Logos’ in the BJRL 1922. ‘Der religionsgeschichtliche Hintergrund des Prologs zum Johannesevangelium’, in Eucharisterion. Festschrift für H. Gunkel, II, Göttingen, 1923 (= FRLANT NF 19), 126. Reprinted in Bultmann, Exegetica, Tübingen, 1967, 9-35. 6 ‘Der Bedeutung der neuerschlossenen mandäischen und manichäischen Quellen für das Verständnis des Johannesevangeliums’, originally published in ZNW 24 (1925), 10046. Reprinted in Bultmann, Exegetica, Tübingen, 1967, 55-104. 7 Hippolytus, Elenchus V 10 2, ed. by Wendland in the GCS 26:102 23-1043. An English version by R. McL. Wilson may be found in NTA II 807-808. W. Bauer’s judgment is there cited, that ‘The psalm is really entirely pagan. Only at one point has it been clearly Christianized by the insertion of the name Jesus instead of the deity originally there named’ (807). 5

EXCURSUS I

83

the praises of the Word.8 The ideas behind the Prologue were thus circulating at the end of the first century, and it is not too difficult to discern which verses in the Prologue may have formed a pre-Christian hymn about the Logos. Bultmann’s opinion is that vv. 6-8 and 15 cannot belong to the original cultic-liturgical hymn, because they are prose, because they interrupt the flow of the argument, because they are concerned with historical events, and because they have a polemical thrust, concerned with the Baptist. Further, vv. 12c-13 also disturb the rhythm of the hymn, and are to be explained as exegetical comments of the author. In addition, v. 17, the only verse in the Gospel to mention the proper name Jesus Christ, and also to use the Pauline antithesis between law and grace is certainly alien in spirit to the original pre-Gospel hymn. Verse 18 is probably to be regarded, on stylistic grounds, as an addition made to the original by the evangelist. The pre-Gospel hymn would therefore have consisted of vv. 1-5, 9-12b, 14 + 16, verses which he regards as stemming ultimately from a Gnostic hymn (akin to the Naasene psalm just mentioned). He conjectures (the term is his) that this hymn may have stemmed from a group of followers of the Baptist, among whom was the evangelist, who after his transition to the Christian community made various insertions in the hymn to urge his former co-religionists to turn, like him, to Christianity. The first edition of Bultmann’s commentary appeared in 1941. It was not widely available for several years, and it is significant that the three influential works of Hoskyns (1940), Dodd (1953: Preface 1950) and R. H. Lightfoot (1956) have nothing to say about a pre-Gospel hymn in the Prologue. 9 Since shortly after 1950, it has become almost routine for commentators to dissect the Prologue, though there are some notable exceptions (e.g. Barrett). Unfortunately there is no consensus on the literary criteria which should be employed to discern the different strata of authorship. Everyone agrees that the verses about the Baptist (6-8 and 15) are prose, and do not belong to a pre-Gospel hymn (if there was one), but there the agreement ceases. On the one hand, it is clear that certain verses tread to a regular rhythm of two or three stresses, often for two or three lines; on the other hand, some other lines which can also be read with that same rhythm hardly seem to qualify as poetry, and can with difficulty be classified as the kind of language one finds in a hymn (e.g. v. 12). Furthermore, even if it were possible to designate which lines are poetry and which are prose, it would not settle the dispute: Barrett has pointed out that ‘antiquity in general found no difficulty in singing prose, and this is what early Christian hymns, from “O gladsome light” to the Te Deum for the

8 Examples are given on page 2, fn. 2 of the German original, and on page 14, fn. 3 of the ETr of the commentary,. 9 It may be mentioned that the commentaries of Hoskyns (d. 1937) and Lightfoot (d. 1953) are posthumous, and that Dodd did not see Bultmann’s commentary as a whole until his book was completed (Interpretation, p. 121, fn. 2).

84

JOHN 1–4

most part were’.10 At the moment, too little is known about the hymnology of the epoch for anyone to make a firm judgment about what was the usual liturgical practice at the time. 11 Except where there is a general consensus (as over vv. 6-8, 15), commentators who advance an opinion about the extent of the pre-Gospel hymn have stressed that their judgments is personal, and hedged by qualifications and hesitancy. Schnackenburg (1965) judged that the original hymn fell into four parts: vv. 1 + 3 - the work of the Logos in creation; 4 + 9 - its significance for the world of mankind; 10 + 11 the rejection of this work before the Incarnation; 14 +16, the Incarnation and salvation. This he regards as coming from a Christian community of converts from Hellenistic Judaism, probably in Asia Minor (cf. 1 Tim 3.16; 1 Pet 3.18). The present text, however, he would divide into three: vv. 1-5, 6-13, and 14-16 (or 14-18). R. E. Brown (1966) ‘with great hesitancy’ proposed as the pre-Gospel text: 1-2 - the Word with God; 3-5 - the Word and Creation; 10-12b the Word in the World; 14 + 16 the Community’s Share in the Word. Verses 6-9 and 15 are excluded as dealing with the Baptist; 12c-13 are an explanation of how people become God’s children, 17-18 an explanation of ‘love in place of love’. Ernst Haenchen12 chose for the original hymn vv. 1-5, 9-11, 14, 16-17, with the remainder as the additions of the evangelist; it represents the increasingly popular choice. Johannes Schneider (before 1970) takes vv. 1-5, 9-12b and 14-18 as the original hymn, stressing his conviction that it is the work of the evangelist himself. 13

10 In ‘The Prologue of St John’s Gospel’, NT Essays, 37. He adds that ‘the only way in which the poetic structure - in any serious sense of the adjective - of the Prologue can be saved is to maintain that it represents not Greek but Semitic verse, based not on quantity but on stress’. He then advances five reasons which make it difficult to believe this, notably that neither Josephus nor Philo nor the LXX translators seem to have recognized this factor of stress as a trait of Semitic poetry. Finally, he cites the hymn at the end of the Poimandres (CH I 31) which is certainly not Semitic, and certainly not verse. One may add also the Gloria in excelsis, the oldest Greek text of which is found in the Codex Alexandrinus among the Odes (in Swete, The OT in Greek III 810-12; in Rahlfs, Septuaginta II 181-83). 11 In 1956, Serafin de Ausejo analyzed the form and content of the hymns in Phil 2.61; Col 1.15-20; 1 Tim 3.16 and Heb 1.2-4 in the light of the contemporary liturgical poetry in the synagogue, and also of the hymns used in Emperor-worship, or in the worship of Artemis, in Asia Minor. He concluded that (partly as a reaction against emperor-worship) the Christian hymns always had three parts, speaking of Christ’s preexistence, earthly life, and exaltation. Unfortunately, the author’s attempt to discover the same tripartite structure in John 1 was less convincing: his three divisions were (i) vv. 15, 9-11, (ii) 13-14ab, and (iii) 14c-e.16.18. See ‘¿Es un Himno a Cristo el Prologo de San Juan?’, Estudios Biblicos 15 (1956), 223-77, 381-427. 12 In ‘Probleme des johanneischen “Prologs”’, ZTK 60 (1963), 305-34, and in the (posthumous) edition of his commentary (1980, ETr 1984). 13 ‘Die anonyme Größe “Gemeinde” besagt sehr weing, Eine “Gemeinde” bringt nich ein solches Lied hervor. Dahinter muß eine bestimmte, tief religiöse, theologisch schöpferische Persönichkeit stehen. Das kann nur der Verfasser des Evangeliums sein. Er

EXCURSUS I

85

One other theory must be mentioned, that the Prologue has a detailed chiastic structure. The idea was first advanced, according to R. A. Culpepper, by N. W. Lund in 1931, but little noticed then, if at all. 14 Lund’s attempt to discern chiastic structures in Jn 1.1-18 was overambitious: it is too elaborate to be convincing, and requires the omission of vv. 6-8 and 15 to succeed. An outline of it is given by Culpepper. Lund, however, rightly called attention to the modern usage whereby the terms ‘chiasm’ and ‘chiastic’ are extended from their original meaning in Greek rhetoric and applied to any regular repetition of words, phrases or even ideas when they recur in the inverse order in a sentence or paragraph. It is customary to mark the correspondent words or ideas A B C D E - E′ D′ C′ B′ A′, or in some similar way. In 1953, M.-E. Boismard, apparently without any knowledge of Lund’s work, suggested that underlying the Prologue there was a very clear and definite pattern ‘in the form of a parabola’. His analogy of a parabola is a more accurate description of the pattern, but the term chiasm has by now long since won the day. The fullest presentation of Boismard’s theory is given in L’Evangile de Jean (1977). He proposes that there was a pre-Gospel hymn, in honour of the Logos, coming from a Jewish-Hellenistic background, but that it consisted of nothing more than vv. 1ab + 3-5, being also a short midrash on Gen 1. 15 The remainder of the Prologue was written by the one whom we may for convenience call the evangelist.16 This means, of course, that this evangelist had sovereign liberty over all the material included in the Prologue, since practically all of it was his own creation. Boismard suggests, for example, that vv. 6-7a + c had in an earlier draft stood immediately before v. 19, introducing the appearance of the Baptist, as in Mark. In John, vv. 7b + 8 were added by the evangelist when he transferred those introductory verses to their present position (73: B 1). The reason that the evangelist made these changes, bringing in the Baptist at two specific points (6-8 and 15), was to create a great and solemn Prologue which would describe how the Word of God came down from heaven to bring life to the earth, and then,

wird den Hymnus zu irgendeiner Zeit geschaffen haben’ (52). This commentary too is posthumous (1976). 14 First in ‘The Influence of Chiasmus upon the Structure of the Gospels’ in the Anglican Theological Review [then from Evanston, Illinois] 13 (1931), 42-46; later in Chiasmus in the New Testament, Chapel Hill, N.C., University of North Carolina Press, 1942. The references are taken from R. A. Culpepper, ‘The Pivot of John’s Prologue’, NTS 27 (1980), 1-31. The outline is on 2-3. 15 His reason for omitting 1c and 2 is that these lines have a binary rhythm, while all the rest have a ternary one. It means, of course, that the original pre-Gospel hymn did not carry the statement that the Logos was God (1c), or stress by repetition that the Logos was, in the beginning, with God. These insertions would have been the work of the evangelist. Boismard does not mention any pre-Gospel hymn in his (semi-popular) book of 1953. 16 So phrased to avoid introducing here the details of Boismard’s general theory. In fact, he speaks of ‘John II B’.

86

JOHN 1–4

when its mission had been accomplished, returned to the God who sent it. The guiding ideas in the evangelist’s mind came from the hymns about Wisdom, as exemplified for instance in Prov 8.22–9.6; Sir 24.1-29, and Wis 9.9-12. Each of these speaks of the existence of Wisdom beside God before the creation, of Wisdom’s part in creation, of its coming down to earth, eventually to God’s Chosen People, and of the benefits it brings (see the commentary on 1.1a.11b and 18b). The evangelist was surely inspired also by the great lines of Isa 55.10-11: ‘as the rain and the snow come down from heaven…so shall my word be, that proceeds from my mouth; it shall not return to me unproductive, - nay, it shall accomplish whatever I have desired’ (LXX: e{w" a]n suntelesqh'/ o{sa hjqevlhsa). These words find their echo in the second part of the Gospel, particularly at those points where John wishes to emphasize the perfect accomplishment of all that Jesus had come to do. See Jn 13.3; 16.28; 17; and especially 19.28,30: eijdw;" oJ ÆIhsou'" o{ti h[dh pavnta tetevlestai … ei\pen, tetevlestai. To express this vision of Verbum supernum prodiens, a Patre lumen exiens,17 the evangelist chose to deploy one of his favourite literary devices, and this time on the grand scale, to depict the descent and ascent of the life-giving Logos (p. 76). In the scheme below the verses concerning the descent are on the left, and are to be read downwards, while the matching verses on the right are to be read upwards. Catch-words are used to recall the contents of the verses on either side. A B C D E

THE DESCENT THE ASCENT 1-2 (beforehand) The Logos with God (afterwards) 3 (in creation) The Work of the Logos (in recreating) 4-5 Life & Light The Gifts of the Logos Grace for grace 6-8 Then The Role of the Baptist Now 9-11 Unrecognized The Logos in the World His Glory Seen F 12-13 The Logos came so that those who received him might become children of God

18 17 16 15 14 F

A′ B′ C′ D′ E′

It is an impressive construction, which cannot be fairly appreciated except by checking the details in the Greek text of the Prologue. 18 In an article published in 1980, R. A. Culpepper has done this, and also added a refinement to Boismard’s plan: he divides section F into two (F + G), thus finding a ‘pivot’ for the structure at 12b (which he labels H).19 His own configuration therefore ends:

17 An Advent hymn, dating at the latest from the tenth century. ‘Heaven’s high Word proceeding forth, As light from our dear Father’s side…’ 18 A. Feuillet, Le Prologue (1968), 160, offers but a slight variation on Boismard’s plan. Verse 9 = 14 (E–E′), and vv. 10-11 = 12-13 (F–F′). 19 R. A. Culpepper, ‘The Pivot of John’s Prologue’, NTS 27 (1980), 1-31. This article also supplies a bibliography of the topic from 1960 to 1980, listing several articles which contributed to the discussion at that time.

EXCURSUS I

87

E 9-10 Unrecognized The Logos in the World His Glory Seen F 11 Israel The Logos and His Own Believers toi'" pisteuvousin G 12a o{soi de; e[labon aujtovn eij" to; o[noma aujtou' H 12b e[dwken aujtoi'" ejxousivan tevkna qeou' genevsqai

14 E ′ 13 ′ F 12c G 12b H

In a second part of his article, Culpepper argues that this theme of becoming ‘children of God’ is central to John’s Gospel. Even though the phrase tevkna qeou' is not found in the LXX, the equivalent is. He examines the use of the word @Be (ben) = son in the Hebrew OT, and of pai'" in the book of Wisdom. He looks at parallels from Qumran (‘sons of light’, 1QS i.9; and ‘sons of truth’, 1QS iv.5), from Philo (especially De Confessione Linguarum 145-47), and from Rabbinic literature, and concludes with a survey of the Synoptics, Paul and 1 John. Through nine pages, Culpepper cites copiously to demonstrate that in the religion of Israel, it is not ethnic origin that is primary, but rather the moral and religious observance of the Covenants of Noah, of Abraham and of Moses. Affiliation with Israel either by descent or by conversion is usually presupposed, but it is only by obedience to the Word of God that one becomes a son, or child, of God. Finally, Culpepper observes that the phrase (ta;) tevkna (tou') qeou' appears only twice in John’s Gospel, here and at 11.52.20 11.52, coming as it does relatively near to the conclusion of Part I of the Gospel, may well mark, by matching 12b here, a Johannine inclusio. ‘By claiming the designation tevkna qeou', the Johannine community was identifying itself (or perhaps more broadly all Christianity) as the heir to a role and standing which Israel had abdicated’ (31) . Shortly afterwards, de la Potterie argued for a different mode of viewing the Prologue.21 He prefers to compare it with three ‘waves’ rolling onshore one after the other, or with three successive movements interpreting afresh a musical theme. With the verses arranged as follows, he argues that the reader can discern the internal dynamism which carries the theme forward. The theme is ‘revelation’. The Language of Wisdom Literature 1-2 In the beginning… 3-4.5a Light amid the darkness 5b Light versus darkness

20 21

The Language of History

The Language of Faith

6-8 There appeared …sent from God 9 The Word was the true light

15 John witnesses: ‘He was before me’

10-12 Mixed Response

16 ‘Of his fullness we have all received’

13-14 The Word become flesh …full of the grace of truth

17 the grace of truth 18 in the bosom of the Father = the Revelation

In John, the word tevkna occurs only once elsewhere, at 8.39. ‘Structure du Prologue de saint Jean’, NTS 30 (1984), 354-81.

88

JOHN 1–4

His presentation is of course accompanied by detailed argument. A little later (1987), Otfried Hofius proposed an impressively elegant division into four strophes, each subdivided into A and B, the entire hymn being dominated by parallelism of thought from line to line. 22 His divisions are: A

1a b c 2

ÆEn ajrch'/ h\n oJ lovgo", ! kai; oJ lovgo" h\n pro;" to;n qeovn, kai; qeo;" h\n oJ lovgo". ou|to" h\n ejn ajrch'/ pro;" to;n qeovn.

a b a b

B

3a b c

pavnta diÆ aujtou' ejgevneto, ! kai; cwri;" aujtou' ejgevneto oujde; e{n o} gevgonen

a b1 b2

II A

4a b 5a b

ÆEn aujtw'/ zwh; h\n, ! kai; hJ zwh; h\n to; fw'" tw'n ajnqrwvpwn: kai; to; fw'" ejn th'/ skotiva/ faivnei, kai; hJ skotiva aujto; ouj katevlaben.

a b a b

B

9a b c

h\n to; fw'" to; ajlhqinovn, o} fwtivzei pavnta a[nqrwpon ejrcovmenon eij" to;n kovsmon.

a b1 b2

ÆEn tw'/ kovsmw/ h\n, !! kai; oJ kovsmo" diÆ aujtou' ejgevneto, kai; oJ kovsmo" aujto;n oujk e[gnw. eij" ta; i[dia h\lqen, kai; oiJ i[dioi aujto;n ouj parevlabon.

a1 a2 b a b

o{soi de; e[labon aujtovn, e[dwken aujtoi'" ejxousivan tevkna qeou' genevsqai.

a b1 b2

Kai; oJ lovgo" sa;rx ejgevneto kai; ejskhvnwsen ejn hJmi'n, kai; ejqeasavmeqa th;n dovxan aujtou', dovxan wJ" monogenou'" para; patrov", plhvrh" cavrito" kai; ajlhqeiva".

a1 a2 b a b

o{ti ejk tou' plhrwvmato" aujtou' hJmei'" pavnte" ejlavbomen kai; cavrin ajnti; cavrito".

a b1 b2

I

III A 10a b c 11a b B 12a b c IV A 14a b c d e B 16a b c

22 ‘Struktur und Gedankengang des Logos-Hymnus in Joh 1.1-18’, ZNW 78 (1987), 1-25. See also H. Gese, ‘Der Johannesprolog’, in Zur biblischen Theologie. Alttestamentliche Vorträge, Tübingen, 1983 (2 Aufl.), 152-201.

EXCURSUS I

89

The literary structure may easily be grasped by referring to the letters on the right of the text. Strophes I and II each have four lines (two parallel distichs) in A, and three lines in B (of which the second and third are parallel). Strophes III and IV each have five lines in A (of which the first two are parallel), and three lines in B (of which the last two belong together, as in I and II). Hofius maintains that this Logos-Hymn is of Christian origin. It will be noted that he includes Jn 1.2 and 9 as essential parts of the hymn. The analysis is ingenious, and finely drawn, and merits close attention. It is now almost universally accepted that there was a pre-Gospel hymn containing at least vv. 1, 3-5 and 10-11. There is an equally firm consensus that the verses about the Baptist (6-8 and 15) should be excluded, and also 12b-13. There is a growing tendency to exclude from the pre-Gospel hymn vv. 2 and 9, and a tendency in the opposite direction to include 12a. Verses 14 and 16 are nowadays generally seen as part of the hymn (but with notable exceptions), while v. 18 is usually excluded (again, with many exceptions). So Boismard summarized the situation in 1977, and it has not fundamentally changed. Some principles may be laid down. If the evangelist made use of a pre-Christian hymn, even one of Jewish-Hellenistic origin, it is safe to say that this hymn would not have contained either the line ‘and the Logos was God’ (1c) or v. 2, and one can say with certainty that it would not have contained the phrase ‘and the Logos became flesh’ (14a). Equally we may exclude from a pre-Christian hymn the four verses about the Baptist (6-8 and 15). Verse 9 also must then be excluded, because it is only a (necessary) connective after v. 8. Verses 10 + 11 may quite properly remain, as being good examples of Jewish thinking about Wisdom, but the most reasonable conjecture to make is that, at this point, the evangelist broke off from the pre-Christian text and continued with his own words (so J. Gnilka). The pre-Christian hymn would in this case have been 1ab + 3 + 4 + 5, then 10 + 11, as follows. 1a b 3a b 4a b 5a b

ÆEn ajrch'/ h\n oJ lovgo", kai; oJ lovgo" h\n pro;" to;n qeovn, pavnta diÆ aujtou' ejgevneto, kai; cwri;" aujtou' ejgevneto oujde; e{n. o} gevgonen | ejn aujtw'/ zwh; h\n, kai; hJ zwh; h\n to; fw'" tw'n ajnqrwvpwn: kai; to; fw'" ejn th'/ skotiva/ faivnei, kai; hJ skotiva aujto; ouj katevlaben.

10a b c 11a b [12a sb

ejn tw'/ kovsmw/ h\n, kai; oJ kovsmo" diÆ aujtou' ejgevneto, kai; oJ kovsmo" aujto;n oujk e[gnw. eij" ta; i[dia h\lqen, kai; oiJ i[dioi aujto;n ouj parevlabon. o{soi de; e[labon aujtovn, e[dwken aujtoi'" …]

90

JOHN 1–4

It is easy to see that 11b does not mark the ending of a hymn, and that 12a, or 12ab, might be the continuation of it, but that the text of the Gospel has at this point begun to depart into strictly Christian realms. If, however, the evangelist incorporated into his Prologue an already existent Christian hymn, then there are no grounds for excluding vv. 1c, 2 or 14a, or indeed any verses at all. Even if he did incorporate such a hymn, he might himself have been its author. Indeed, he himself might well have written the whole Prologue (Barrett, and, practically speaking, Boismard), for no clear literary criteria are available to prove for certain whether he did or did not. More about this hypothetical hymn it is impossible to say, except that if through the discovery of hitherto unknown texts, it became clear that either a Jewish or a pre-Gospel Christian hymn lies beneath the text of John’s Prologue, this might lead to a deeper comprehension of the Gospel text. Likewise, some may find that one of the plans proposed above is of real help in understanding better the thrust of the argument. The fact that the plans differ from one another is not significant. It is always so with great literature, and the variety of interpretation which is legitimately possible with Virgil, Dante or Shakespeare only bears witness to the richness of the thought. If, however, the gospel-writer put to use a hymn from a non-Jewish and non-Christian source, then the implications for the interpretation of the Gospel-text might be quite different, and even significant. One suggestion is that an originally Gnostic hymn was used (Bultmann 1923). That the Gospel itself is even tolerant of the basic tenets of secondcentury Gnosticism is, of course, disproved from the start by Jn 1.3, asserting that all things were made through the Logos; no Gnostic could have agreed that the entire material world was either good (Gen 1), or created by God through the Logos. Indeed, for a Gnostic, the one more objectionable affirmation conceivable is that ‘the Word became flesh’; to a Gnostic, that declaration is the ultimate blasphemy. Nevertheless, there are those who still contend that there is a real affinity between the Johannine Prologue and Gnosticism, a relationship which does not rest merely on whether a Gnostic hymn was used by the evangelist. A deeper problem is involved, which is more conveniently addressed in a separate Excursus dealing with the Logos in the Prologue.

EXCURSUS II

THE LOGOS IN THE PROLOGUE

The sole purpose of this Excursus is to examine the background for the interpretation of the term Logos in the Prologue. More comprehensive articles on Logos may be found in the larger dictionaries. 1 Note too that Schnackenburg, in an Excursus entitled ‘The Origin and Nature of the Johannine Concept of the Logos’ (I 264-69 = ETr I 488-93) presents (in translation) a valuable collection of original texts about the Logos from the Corpus Hermeticum, the Odes of Solomon and from Nag Hammadi. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Richard Reitzenstein sought to explain much of the Fourth Gospel in terms of Egyptian Gnosis, but subsequently, after the publication by Lidzbarski of the major books of the Mandaean religion (1915, 1920, 1925), he became convinced that the main influence on John was to be found not in Egyptian but in Iranian religion.2 A synthesis of his theory may be found in the third edition of what is almost his final work, where he reaffirms that behind all the religions of the Near and Middle East there lies an old myth about a saviour sent from heaven to deliver all souls from darkness, and to lead them back to the kingdom of light. This saviour has many names—the Son of God, the Heavenly Man, the Logos, etc. For our present purpose, it is enough to cite the declaration that sometimes in the NT, ‘mostly in nonPauline passages, lovgo" appears for the concept nou'", and it appears to contain within itself the two elements or essential attributes of deity, light and life’,3 a statement which Reitzenstein interprets in terms of Iranian mystery-religions (such as that of Mani). He had become convinced that within the Mandaean literature 4 it is possible to discern passages which 1 E.g. TWNT IV (1942) s.v. legvw, lovgo" ktl. 71-76, Philology (A. Debrunner); 76-89, Classical Greece and Hellenism, including Philo (H. Kleinknecht); 89-100, OT (O. Procksch); 100-140, NT (G. Kittel). DBS V (1957) s.v. Logos. 442-65, OT (A. Robert); 465-79 NT era (C. Mondésert, except 473-75, Alexandrian Judaism and Philo, by J. Starcky); 479-96, NT (J. Starcky). 2 See R. Reitzenstein, Poimandres, Leipzig, 1904, and Das iranische Erlösungsmysterium, Bonn, 1921. 3 Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, Leipzig, 3rd ed., 1927, ETr by John E. Steely, Hellenistic Mystery Religions: Their Basic Ideas and Significance, Pittsburgh, 1978. The quotation above, and its interpretation, occur on 413-14 = ETr 526-27. 4 None of the extant manuscripts is older than the sixteenth century, and the compilation is certainly post-Islamic, i.e. not much before A.D. 700.

92

JOHN 1–4

can with confidence be dated back to the disciples of John the Baptist mentioned in Acts 18.14–19.7, of whom the Mandaeans of the eighth and following centuries are in his judgment the legitimate successors. Christianity too, in his opinion, arose out of this same Baptist sect. The Johannine Logos is therefore to be interpreted against the background of the Iranian redeemer-myth, by means of what we learn about it from the extant Mandaean writings. For further detail on Mandaism, see the excellent essay by C. H. Dodd in his Interpretation, 115-30. The texts published by Lady E. S. Drower (1953, 1959) have not materially altered the balance of the debate. The theory as put forward by Reitzenstein won little favour, but as reworked by Bultmann, it had considerable influence in Germany and among the next generation of the ‘history-of-religions school’. 5 Bultmann recognized that the points of comparison between the Mandaean and Johannine texts are not specifically Mandaean, but common to the many varieties of Gnosis current in the first two centuries of the Christian era. The contrasts between light and darkness, between life and death, between truth and lies, are frequent in all varieties of Gnosticism, and in other religions and philosophies too. What is distinctive in, and characteristic of, Gnosis ‘hinges on the descent and return of a redeemer and revealer from on high’, a figure who is often called Logos or Nous or Anthropos (Schnackenburg I 120 = ETr I 138). In Gnosticism, this redeemer comes to set free souls, which had once existed as purely spiritual beings in a heavenly world, from their bondage to matter, and to return them to their heavenly homeland; thus the coming of this redeemer presages ‘a cosmic event which sets in motion an eschatological occurrence…as a process of nature by which the union of the essentially opposite natures, light and darkness, is dissolved’.6 Clearly, John’s idea of human life is far removed from this perception. In Bultmann’s presentation, therefore, the Johannine redeemer is an entirely human person, Jesus of Nazareth, in whom the Logos (in the Gnostic sense of the first emanation from the one God) is (John does not tell us how) embodied. Jesus comes to set all humankind free by challenging them with the word of truth, so that each person must face up to, and make a moral judgment on, his or her own conduct. It is only by saying Yes to this word of God that each one discovers inner freedom, personal salvation and true life here on this earth. It is in this sense that Bultmann would speak of realized eschatology. 7 Bultmann is certainly not an ancient Gnostic. He is a modern existentialist. The attempt to interpret the Fourth Gospel by means of the Mandaean literature is altogether too far-fetched to be convincing. A more obvious source of relevant background might be sought in the Corpus Hermeticum, 5 In the two articles mentioned above on p. 82 nn. 5 and 6, and in his commentary on John. See also his Theologie (in the ETr II), especially §46. 6 Theologie, 387 = ETr II 40. 7 Theologie = ETr II §50 (‘Faith as Eschatological Existence’).

EXCURSUS II

93

a collection of Egyptian origin, dating from the second or third centuries; parts of it may well be from the early second century. In its first treatise, the Poimandres, we read that ‘out of light a holy Word came to hover over nature, and out of the humid nature pure fire leapt up on high…and the air, being light, followed the draught, rising up to the fire from the land and the water…’ (I.5). If the opening of this quotation recalls Gen 1, the following words make it abundantly clear that the author is thinking in terms of the Stoic cosmogony, with its four elements of earth and air, fire and water.8 Later we read that there is deposited within the soul an enlightening Logos by which the soul is united to itself, and to God (I.67), another distinctive characteristic of Gnosticism. A reading of the entire treatise makes it evident that the world of the Poimandres is not that of the evangelist, and is much closer to that of Egyptian nonChristian Gnosis. By contrast, the Odes of Solomon are in fact very closely related to the Fourth Gospel, and it is even possible that their author was acquainted with it. References to the Word, however, are few, and can always be explained by reference to the OT alone. For example, the texts of Ode 16.19 (‘the worlds are by his word’; cf. Jn 1.3) and of Odes 15.2; 18.6, where the Logos is light to the mind (cf. Jn 1.4-5) provide no further help for interpreting the term Logos than is already available in the OT. Three texts from the library discovered in 1945 at Nag Hammadi, all dating from the middle of the second century, may be cited here, simply by way of example. The opening of the Gospel of Truth reads: ‘The gospel of truth is joy for those who have received from the Father of truth the grace of knowing him, through the power of the Word that came forth from the pleroma, the one who is in the thought and the mind of the Father, that is, the one who is addressed as the Savior, (that) being the name of the work he is to perform for the redemption of those who were ignorant of the Father…’ (16.31–17.4). Later we find: ‘While [the Father’s] wisdom contemplates the Word, and his teaching utters it, his knowledge has revealed it’ (23.18-22), and ‘In this way the Word of the Father goes forth in the totality’ (23.33-35). Finally, we read that ‘When the Word appeared, …it is not a sound alone, but it became a body’ (26.4-8), bringing confusion among the ‘jars’ or ‘vessels’, that is, among human souls (26.10-29). In the first two texts quoted, the Word is entrusted by the Father with a function in revelation and salvation, but as the last text makes clear, this role is much closer to the role of the Saviour in Gnosticism than to early Christianity. The same can be said of two other treatises, the Apocryphon of John (‘I am the Pronoia of the pure light’: 31.11) and the Trimorphic Protennoia (with its frequent ‘I am’

8 The most convenient of texts on this point is in J. von Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, Leipzig, 1905, 19-20 fn. 102, quoting Stobaeus, Eclogae I 17 3, and Diogenes Laertius VII 135-36 and 142.

94

JOHN 1–4

sayings). All three works are Gnostic treatises which have been given, here and there, a thin varnish of Christian language. 9 These Gnostic texts, like those of second-century Christian Gnostics such as the Valentinians, simply serve to show that in the Eastern Mediterranean there was a widely circulating myth which sought to explain the origin of the world and the problem of evil by a theory in which a being called the Logos played a significant but intermediary role. This provides a parallel with the work of the Logos in John’s Prologue, but no justification for interpreting the Johannine Logos in terms of the Saviour envisaged by the Gnostics, whose task was to liberate pre-existent human souls from enslavement in matter. Anyone searching for light on the Johannine Logos naturally turns to Philo, who sincerely and loyally strove to re-express the ancestral faith of Judaism in terms of Greek philosophy, and specifically as interpreted by the Middle Platonist school and the Stoics. Once again, Dodd provides an excellent survey in his Interpretation 54-74, of which 65-74 present Philo’s understanding of the divine Logos. From the Platonists, Philo took the idea that this world (kovsmo" aijsqhtov") is the copy of a higher world (kovsmo" nohtov"), and from the Stoics (who recognized no such supermundane existence) the idea that a rational principle within the material world (oJ tou' kovsmou lovgo") held it all together. Then, taking from Judaism the doctrine that God created the world by his Word (Gen 1; Ps 32.6) and by his Wisdom (Wis 7.27), Philo suggested that just as a human word is the outward expression of a human thought, so God’s Logos is the expression of divine Wisdom. According to Philo, therefore, there is a blueprint of creation (kovsmo" nohtov"), analogous to the world of Platonic Forms, in the mind or Wisdom of God; and when this is projected over formless matter by the Word (the lovgo" proforikov"), the material world is brought into being. See De Opificio Mundi 16-20. This Logos is sometimes called the eijkwvn of God and even his prwtovgono" uiJov" (though the personalization is not to be taken literally). It acts as God’s intermediary in history (as in the OT), and relays the truth of God to individual souls. Here there is obviously an affinity of ideas with the world of the Fourth Gospel, but in Philo, the Logos is never fully personal, certainly never incarnate, and never the object of faith or love. 10 Neither Philo nor the Gnostics is able to supply a convincing background which will account for all the attributes with which, according to John, the Logos of the Prologue is endowed: eternal, creator, sovereign Lord of all history, light of humanity, and Word made flesh. The OT, by contrast, can express all these attributes with the term ‘the Word of our 9 The texts cited are to be found in The Nag Hammadi Library, 3rd completely revised edition, Leiden, 1988, on 40, 43, 44, 122. The Trimorphic Protennoia is printed on 511-22. 10 Thus Dodd, Interpretation, 73. For further details on the Logos in Philo, see the writers listed in Schnackenburg I 261-63 = ETr 485-87.

EXCURSUS II

95

God’. To understand the term Logos in the Prologue, it is necessary only to study the meaning of the term in the OT, both Greek and Hebrew, and—we may now add—in the Aramaic translations too. Even if these Targums do not predate the Fourth Gospel, they are the best guide we possess to the Aramaic tradition in which John’s Gospel was first formed. It is therefore on the basis of this background that the meaning of the term Logos has been expounded in the body of the commentary, particularly under vv. 1 and 14. At the beginning of the Prologue, the central figure in the Fourth Gospel is introduced as the Logos. After the statement of the fact of the incarnation (Jn 1.14), the title is never used again. Instead, the evangelist writes only of Jesus, who ‘embodies’ the Logos in his flesh, to such an extent that death itself does not separate the Logos from his earthly body. John’s narrative of the burial refers four times to ‘the body of Jesus’ (to; sw'ma tou' ÆIhsou', 19.38 [×2], 40; 20.12), which in the end is identified with ‘Jesus’ (19.42, ejkei' ou\n…e[qhkan to;n ÆIhsou'n). The climax of the Gospel then turns into a triumphant affirmation that the once torn and bleeding body which was crucified now lives again, its wounds not closed but glorified (Jn 20.20, and 24-29). Ut in perpetuum victoriae suae circumferat triumphum.11 Nothing could be further from the Gnostic idea of a heaven-sent redeemer come to release human souls from imprisonment in the flesh and to lead them to a non-material, purely spiritual home. And nothing could be closer to the traditions of Israel as embodied in the OT. There the Word of God is from the beginning creative (Gen 1 etc.) and the provident Saviour of God’s people for the future good of all the human race (Isa 40–55). The sense of Jn 1.14 is that all that had previously been true of the Word and Wisdom of God in the OT is from a particular moment in time, the moment of the incarnation, embodied in Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the Christ. Compare Heb 1.1. The Fourth Gospel (like Matthew’s) contains no narrative record of Christ’s ascension. There are allusions to an ascension in the sense of an exaltation (e.g. Jn 3.13; 6.62; 20.17), but not in the sense of a departure and separation from his own (not even in 20.17). As in Mt 28.20, the narrative ends with Jesus still on stage, still facing and addressing all future ages. John 20.29 closes the book with Jesus proclaiming, ‘Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe’, Jn 21.23 with him declaring ‘If I wish him to remain until I come, what is that to you?’ Both endings express the same truth, that ‘the Word of our God abides for ever’ (Isa 40.8), publishing its message thereafter through the Church to the world in every age. In calling Jesus the Word made flesh, the evangelist was equating him with the Memra, and thus with everything that term implies. 12 In so doing, 11 12

Bede, In Lucam VI, on Lk 24.40. See pp. 8-9, and the comment under 1.14b, on pp. 54-57.

96

JOHN 1–4

he had chosen from Israel’s tradition the perfect formulation for presenting the distinctively Christian teaching to Judaism, in a context which Judaism could well understand. At the same time, by employing the Greek term Logos, he was presenting Jesus as the Saviour to all ‘the Greeks’ (cf. Jn 12.21) who sincerely sought the truth about God amid the perplexing world of Hellenistic religions.

EXCURSUS III

THE MEANING OF MONOGENHS�IN JOHN 1.14, 18

English Versions of monogenou'" para; patrov" AV = KJV (1611) Douay-Ch. (1749) RV (1881) RVmg RSV (1952) NRSV (1989) NEB (1st ed., 1961; 2nd ed., 1970) REB (1989) NIV (1978) NIVmg NAB (1986) TEV = GNB (1966) TNT = BFBS (1973) JB (1966) NJB (1985) Weymouth (1902) Moffatt (1913) Torrey (1933) Knox (1945) Williams (1952) Kleist (1954) Phillips (1960) Barclay (1968)

as of the only begotten of the Father as it were of the only begotten of the Father as of the only begotten from the Father as of an only begotten from a father as of the only Son from the Father as of a father’s only son as befits the Father’s only Son as befits the Father’s only Son of the one and only [Son] who came from the Father of the Only Begotten who came from the Father as of the Father’s only Son which he received as the Father’s only Son such as belongs to the Father’s only Son that is his as the only Son of the Father that he has from the Father as only Son of the Father as of the Father’s only Son, sent from His presence such as an only son enjoys from his father as of an only son, bestowed by a father such as belongs to the Father’s only-begotten Son of the only Son from the Father such as befits to the Father’s only-begotten Son as of a father’s only son which an only son receives from his father

These versions have been widely used or influential. The Problem (1) The three pre-1901 versions (AV, RV and Douai-Challoner) have only begotten, which the twentieth-century ones (with the exception of Knox, Kleist, and NIV [and NIV mg]) have replaced with only Son. (2) What a minority of the Revisers were striving for in 1881, namely, the reading in RVmg,1 has found approval only from Torrey, Philips, Barclay 1 ‘The marginal reading stood in the text in the First Revision. It is one among very many places where a conservative minority damaged the work by the operation of the twothirds rule’ (J. H. Moulton, in MHT I 83 fn. 1).

98

JOHN 1–4

and NRSV: otherwise patrov" is always translated as if it had the article, and in addition referred, by capitalization, to [God] the Father. (3) Apart from the agreements between NEB and REB, and between Phillips and NRSV, no two versions are identical. The translators, concerned to catch the nuances of wJ" and parav, seem to have been less anxious about the anarthrous patrov", and agreed on the interpretation of monogenhv". (4) The purpose of this Excursus is to question whether it is certain that monogenhv" means, in Jn 1.14, ‘an only [or: only-begotten] son’. All the above versions (even NIV) consider that the idea of sonship is implied in the adjective. This was until around 1980 the common opinion of expositors, vigorously presented by F. Büchsel in TWNT IV (1942), 745-50, particularly on 745, fn. 6 and 749 7-11; so also de la Potterie (Vérité, 18191), Barrett, 2nd ed., 166, Dahms, 222-32, and Theobald. The meaning unique, however, preferred by Winter, D. Moody Smith, Fitzmyer and Pendrick, appears to be gaining more support. The Lexical Data (1) monogenhv" occurs nine times in the NT. (a) In Lk 7.12; 8.42; 9.38, it refers to an only child, and is always translated in the Latin versions as unicus (–a), not unigenitus (–a): that is, it could refer to an only surviving child. (b) In Heb 11.17 the Vg gives ‘et unigenitum offerebat qui susceperat repromissiones’, the VL, ‘et unicum’. Strictly speaking, both unicum and unigenitum are equally incorrect, since Isaac was not the only-begotten of Abraham: Ishmael was alive (note Gen 17.18; and the lovely midrash in Sanhedrin 89b). The usual (and surely correct) explanation is that Isaac was the only-born of Sarah, through whom the promise was to be fulfilled (Gen 17.19), and therefore the only son as far as the promises went. So Theophylactus, cited in Westcott, Hebrews, 366: pw'" de; monogenh;" h\n ÆIsaa;k o{pouge kai; to;n ÆIsmah;l ei\ceÉ ajllÆ o{son kata; to;n ejpaggeliva" lovgon monogenhv" . The sense of monogenhv" in Heb 11.17 is therefore ‘this particular child, who was in a class by himself’ (because of the divine promise; see Heb 11.18, citing Gen 21.12). (c) In the other five NT references, Jn 1.14.18; 3.16.18, and 1 Jn 4.9, the Vg always renders unigenitus, but whether only-begotten or only son is a correct rendering of all five Johannine texts is the point under discussion. The VL reads unicus in more than one of these texts (see below), and it will not be forgotten that nowhere else in the NT is Jesus called monogenhv".

EXCURSUS III

99

(2) The meaning of monogenhv" in the OT. (a) In the MT, the word dyijy: (ya!id) occurs eight times with the meaning an only child (Gen 22.2, 12, 16; Judg 11.34 [explicit]; Amos 8.11; Jer 6.26; Zech 12.10; Prov 4.3). In seven of these texts, the LXX translates it as ajgaphtov". The only exception is Judg 11.34, where A has kai; au{th monogenh;" aujtw'/ ajgaphthv, kai; oujk e[stin aujtw'/ plh;n aujth'" uiJo;" h] qugavthr, and B, kai; h\n au{th monogenhv", oujk h\n aujtw'/ e{tero" uiJo;" h] qugavthr. This is the only instance in the LXX where dyijy: (ya!id) is translated by monogenhv", and it is notoriously difficult to discern what was the original LXX of Judges. The Targums render all the above eight texts with the same root dyijy: (ya!id), meaning only, single, individual (cf. Jastrow). The Vg too, translating from the Hebrew, renders all eight texts by unigenitus [-a]. The VL, however, following the LXX, gives dilectum, dilectissimo, amantissimum in Genesis, dilectus in Amos and Jeremiah; in Jdg 11.34 it has unica, in Zech 12.10 charissimum, and Prov 4.3 is lacking. 2 (b) The word monogenhv" appears in Tob 3.15; 6.10, [11,] 14 [15 S: not BA]; 8.17 [duvo monogenei'"]; Wis 7.22 and Bar 4.16 [Codd. A&V: BS read monhn]. In every case, both Vg and VL translate by unicus [-a]. (c) The texts just given under (a) and (b) list all the occurrences of monogenhv" in the LXX. It is clear therefore (i) that the early Latin translators understood monogenhv", wherever it is found in the LXX, as meaning unicus; and (ii) that the real problem is to find out why the LXX translators did not render dyijy: (ya!id) by a word meaning only-begotten or only-born, but by a word meaning dearly beloved.3 (d) Delitzsch suggests4 that in Gen 22.2 the LXX must have read ^dydy (yedideka), but this suggestion, though it might account for a similar misreading at 22.12 and 16, can hardly extend to all the other texts as well. Hence, given that the fundamental meaning of the Hebrew root djy is not so much to be alone as to be united, the LXX translators may well have understood dyIjy: (ya!id) as meaning uniquely cherished. This would have been all the more likely if they did not know of an exact Greek word (other than movno") to denote an only child. (3) The meaning of monogenhv" in non-biblical Greek. (a) LSJ gives ‘the only member of a kin or kind: hence, generally, only, single, pai'" Hes. Op. 376, Hdt. 7.221, cf. Ev. Jo. 1.14…’ etc. The word 2 According to B. Fischer (for Genesis) and P. Sabatier, Bibliorum Sacrorum, Cyprian once has unicum for Gen 22.2 (Test. III 15: CSEL III 127). 3 The translations in the Targums and the Vg are of course much later, and may for our purposes be disregarded. 4 New Commentary on Genesis, Edinburgh, 1889, II 86.

100

JOHN 1–4

may be either a qualifying adjective with a noun (e.g. pai'") as above, or may stand alone, signifying an only child: so Hesiod, Theogony 426, oujdÆ, o{ti mounogenhv", h|sson qea; e[mmore timh'". But its first and fundamental meaning is unique, the clearest example of which occurs in Plato, Timaeus 31b: ou[te duvo ou[tÆ ajpeivrou" ejpoihsen oJ poiw'n kovsmou", ajllÆ ei|" o{de monogenh;" oujrano;" gegonw;" e[stin kai; e[tÆ e[stai. (b) Indeed, so certain is this primary sense that Dodd in 1952 felt constrained to argue that ‘one who is monogenhv" relatively to a pathvr can be no other than the only son, although monogenhv" (from movno" and gevno") does not mean (at this period [i.e. NT times] at any rate) “onlybegotten” (monogevnnhto"), but “alone of his kind”, “unique”’ (Interpretation, 305 fn. 1). However, the etymologically flawless formation monogevnnhto", and equally monogevnhto", figure nowhere in LSJ or the PGL, and (what Dodd could not have known) are nowhere to be found in the early Greek Christian writers of the first four centuries. A computer survey of TLG gave a nil return for Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Didymus, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianus, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and also John of Damascus. It is safe to say that monogevnnhto" and monogevnhto" did not exist, and that monogenhv", the primary meaning of which is unique, alone of its kind, would therefore have been used to denote an only child. (c) The word monogenhv" does not, however, occur in Philo (cf. TWNT IV 747 fn. 9). In Josephus, it is found only in Ant. I 222 and V 264, the former being a retelling of Gen 22.2, where it qualifies ‘Isaac’, and the latter of Jdg 11.34, where it qualifies ‘daughter’. (d) The only instance in the Apostolic Fathers (cf. Kraft, CPA) is in 1 Clem 25.21, with reference to the phoenix: tou'to monogene;" uJpavrcon zh'/ e[th pentakovsia. J. B. Lightfoot comments (Clement II 87): ‘ “alone of its kind”. This epithet is applied to the phoenix also in Origen, Cyril and Apost. Const. v.7’, the last reference being ‘evidently founded on this passage of Clement’, so that it must have been understood in this same sense. (e) Two texts in the Greek Apologists are relevant (cf. D. Ruiz Bueno, PAG, with its splendid index). (i) Aristides, Apology 15.3 (ca. 135?): gignwvskousi ga;r to;n qeo;n ktivsthn kai; dhmiourgo;n tw'n aJpavntwn ejn uiJw/' monogenei' kai; pneuvmati aJgivw/ kai; a[llon qeo;n plh;n touvtou ouj sevbontai. Since Aristides is here addressing the Emperor Hadrian, the most appropriate rendering would be ‘in a son who is quite unique, and in a holy spirit’.

EXCURSUS III

101

(ii) Justin, Dialogue 98.5; 105.1, 2 (ca. 155–165). Three times in 98.5 and 105.1.2 we find Ps 21[22].21 quoted, where monogenhv" means ‘soul’. But another part of 105.1 reads: Monogenh;" ga;r oJti h\n tw'/ patri; tw'n o{lwn ou|to", ijdivw" ejx aujtou' lovgo" kai; duvnami" gegennhmevno", kai; u{steron a[nqrwpo" dia; th'" parqevnou genovmeno"… It is certain that monogenhv" is here used by Justin of the pre-Incarnate Word. (f) To these one may add the Martyrdom of Polycarp 20.2 (ca. 156): dia; tou' monogenou'" paido;" aujtou' ÆIhsou' Cristou' , and the Epistle to Diognetus 10 (at the latest, 150–200): ajpevsteile to'n uiJo;n aujtou' to'n monogenh') which is probably a quotation from 1 Jn 4.9 (cf. Lightfoot, AF 498). (g) Around A.D. 150, the Valentinians were beginning to use the term Monogenes as a designation for their aeon Nous, and drawing a sharp distinction between the Monogenes and the historical Jesus. It was possibly for this reason that the term monogenhv" was introduced, ca. 160–180, into the credal questions that lie at the origin of the Old Roman Creed, for its use in Christian writings before Irenaeus is (see above) rare (so J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 142). It is certain that after Irenaeus the term is used both of the pre-Incarnate and of the Incarnate Word with the meaning ‘only-begotten’. The problem is to discern how far back this meaning ‘only-begotten’ goes. The three texts cited above in (e)(ii) and in (f) seem to clamour for the meaning ‘only-begotten’, and for this meaning only; but all three appear to belong to the second half of the second century. Towards a Resolution of the Problem (a) The Western Creeds It was probably ca. 200–250 that the Roman Creed came to be used in Latin. The words to;n uiJo;n to;n monogenh' were translated as filium eius unicum (i.e. not unigenitum), a rendering which has prevailed up to the present day. So too virtually all other Western Creeds (Milan, Ravenna, Aquileia, Carthage, Spain, Ireland) have unicum [-o]; only in southern Gaul and Alemannia, from ca. 500 to ca. 800, do we encounter unigenitum (see DS 10-36; 25-27 for the variant). Almost all these Western Creeds read textually ‘Et in Iesum Christum Filium eius unicum Dominum nostrum’, and immediately afterwards (with slight textual variations) ‘qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto et natus ex Maria virgine’. Thus filium eius unicum, meaning his only son, is used to refer not to the pre-Incarnate Word within the Holy Trinity, but to the historical figure, Jesus Christ, the one and only Son of God, who was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of Mary the virgin. If this

102

JOHN 1–4

represents the understanding of monogenh' in the baptismal liturgy of Rome ca. 220, may this not have been the interpretation accepted earlier? That is to say, monogenhv" was not used to denote the Word as coeternal, but to describe the Word as made flesh by stressing how unique he is among all members of the human race. Some measure of support for this view may be found in the early Latin writers. (a) Tertullian, in adv. Prax. XV.6, has ‘tanquam unigeniti’ and (for 1.18) ‘unigenitus filius’ (CCSG 2.117933.40-41), but shortly afterwards, in XXI.3, writes: ‘Huius gloria visa est tanquam unici a Patre, non tanquam Patris, praecedit enim: Deum nemo vidit unquam. Hic unicus sinum Patris disservit…’ (CCSG 2.1194 16-19). As these are the only three relevant references in his writings, it is legitimate to wonder whether some scribe has not harmonized the biblical text to make it match the Vg: there are only four MSS of the adv. Praxean, two of the eleventh century, one of the fifteenth, and one now lost (see CCSG introduction). (b) Cyprian also, in Test. I.7 and III.31, reads unici, not unigeniti, at Jn 3.18; and the De rebaptismate 13 similarly has unicum not unigenitum at Jn 3.16 (CSEL III 453; 1446; Appendix 867). (c) Lucifer of Cagliari, that treasure-trove of quotations from the VL, offers unicum for Jn 3.16,18 and for 1 Jn 4.9 (De s. Athan. II 2325.30 and 1646, in CCSL 8. 116; 105). (b) The Eastern Creeds The earliest Eastern Creed, that of Eusebius of Caesarea, reads: kai; eij" e{na kuvrion ÆIhsou'n Cristovn, to;n tou' Qeou' lovgon, Qeo;n ejk Qeou', fw'" ejk fwtov", zwh;n ejk zwh'", uiJo;n monogenh' , prwtovtokon pavsh" ktivsew", pro; pavntwn tw'n aijwvnwn ejk tou' patro'" gegennhmevnon, diÆ ou| kai; ejgevneto ta; pavnta ktl. (DS 40). So also the Nicene Creed: kai; eij" e{na kuvrion ÆIhsou'n Cristovn, to;n uiJo;n tou' Qeou', ejk tou' Patro;" monogenh gennhqevnta', toutevstin ejk th'" oujsiva" tou' Patro", Qeo;n ejk Qeou', fw'" ejk fwtov", Qeo;n ajlhqino;n ejk Qeou' ajlhqinou', pro; pavntwn tw'n aijwvnwn ejk tou' patro'", gennhqevnta ouj poihqevnta, oJmoouvsion tw'/ patriv, diÆ ou| kai; ta; pavnta ejgevneto, tav te ejn oujranw'/ kai; ta; ejn th'/ gh'/ ktl. (DS 125). Similarly, the traditional reformulation at Constantinople: kai; eij" e{na kuvrion ÆIhsou'n Cristovn, to;n uiJo;n tou' Qeou' to;n monogenh', to;n ejk tou' Patro;" gennhqenta pro; pavntwn tw'n aijwvnwn, fw'" ejk fwtov", Qeo;n ajlhqino;n ejk Qeou' ajlhqinou', gennhqevnta ouj poihqevnta, ejk tou' patro'", oJmoouvsion tw'/ patriv, diÆ ou| ta; pavnta ejgevneto (DS 150). All the Greek Creeds dwell upon the eternal generation of the Son before creation (DS 40-61), so that in them monogenhv" is quite naturally and correctly interpreted as referring to this unique generation from eternity from the Father. Thus, for example, Cyril of Jerusalem: e{na de; levgomen Kuvrion ÆIhsou'n Cristo;n, i{na monogenh;" h\/ hJ uiJovth" (Cat. X 3), and UiJo;n monogenh', ajdelfo;n evJteron oujc e[conta, dia; tou'to gar kalei'tai monogenh;" o{ti eij" to; th'" qeovthto" ajxivwma kai; th;n ejk Patro;" gevnnhsin ajdelfo;n oujc e[[cei (XI 2).

EXCURSUS III

103

Conclusion It is thus not absurd to suggest that the meaning of monogenhv" in Jn 1.14 is not only-begotten, or even only son, but rather quite unique, in a class of his own. This is the starting-point of the revelation in the Fourth Gospel, from which the nature of the Father and of Jesus’ Sonship is gradually disclosed. The revelation begins with an assertion of the uniqueness of the historical Jesus, and then proceeds to affirm the truth of what he disclosed about the nature of God (vv. 16-18). 5 So too the earliest professions of faith, whether in Greek or Latin, require the candidate for baptism to affirm the unique excellence of Jesus as man. It was only when the need arose to formulate an unambiguous affirmation of his full divinity that the term monogenhv" was applied to his eternal generation from the Father, long after the Fourth Gospel was written.

5 See also G. Pendrick ‘MONOGENHS’, NTS 41 (1995), 587-600. With a wealth of classical examples he reaches the same conclusion, in favour of the meaning unique, by a somewhat different route. The argument was also presented, with an application to German renderings, in Von der Suche nach Gott (FS Helmut Riedlinger), Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt, 1998, ‘Vom Sinn des monogenhv" in Joh 1.14,18’, 339-49.

EXCURSUS IV

LONGER NOTES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM

The Punctuation of John 1.3-4 1 Of the two ways of punctuating vv. 3-4, the first places a full point at the end of v. 3, after o} gevgonen, whereas the second places a full point after oujde; e{n, and takes the words o} gevgonen as the initial words of the sentence in v. 4. ejgevneto oujde; e{n o} gevgonen. ejn aujtw'/ zwh; h\n. Thus the Textus Receptus. This was the division presented in the first printed editions of the Greek NT, namely, Erasmus’ NT (1516), and Ximenes’ Complutensian Polyglot (printed 1514, published 1522). Stephanus, in his first three editions (1546, 1549, 1550) followed them, and when, in his fourth edition (1551), he introduced the division of chapters into verses, he naturally placed the verse ending, in accordance with the punctuation, after gevgonen. So the division between 3 and 4 was consolidated, and this punctuation became generally accepted, especially through the editions of the brothers Elzevier (1624 [1st ed.], 1633 [2nd ed.]—the latter being the first to claim the sobriquet Textus Receptus). Even after the dethronement of the Textus Receptus in the midnineteenth century, this punctuation was retained by Tischendorf in his first seven editions (1841–1859), by B. Weiss (1894–1900), Souter (1910 [1st ed.], 1947 [2nd ed.]),2 Vogels (1920 [1st ed.], 1922 [2nd ed.]), Merk (1933), and Bover (1943) plus Nestle, editions 1–25 (1898–1963). For centuries translators followed this reading, in the AV = KJV, RV, ASV, RSV (1946), NIV (1973), and—somewhat surprisingly—in the REB (1989). ejgevneto oujde; e{n (or: oujdevn). o} gevgonen ejn aujtw'/ zwh; h\n. The second part here may of course be construed in two ways, either as or as

(a) o} gevgonen / ejn aujtw'/ zwh; h\n. (b) o} gevgonen ejn aujtw'/ // zwh; h\n.

1 The basic article assembling all the detail is by K. Aland, ‘Eine Untersuchung zu Joh 1.3-4’, ZNW 59 (1968), 174-209. See also the comprehensive study by Ed. L. Miller, Salvation History in the Prologue of John: The Significance of John 1.3-4, NovTSup 60, Leiden, 1989. 2 But it should not be forgotten that Souter was supplying the Greek text underlying the RV of 1881.

EXCURSUS IV

105

One or other of these alternatives must be chosen in order to interpret and to translate reading 2 at all. According to K. Aland, the first editor to propose this reading in modern times was E. Barton (Oxford, 1831). He was followed by Lachmann (1837), Tischendorf (ed. 8a, 1869), Tregelles (1870), Westcott-Hort (1881), von Soden (1913), Vogels (31949), Kilpatrick in 2BFBS (1958), the Greek NT for Translators (1960), Tasker (1964), the UBS (1966) and NA26 (1979) and NA27 (1993). The growing preference for this reading during the second half of the twentieth century is reflected in the number of translations which adopt it: Bible de Jérusalem (1958), NEB (1961 [1st ed.], 1970 [2nd ed.]), NAB (1970), Translator’s NT (1973). NRSV (1989).3 This is also the punctuation of the Sixtine Vulgate (‘sine ipso factum est nihil: quod factum est in ipso vita erat’) and of Wordsworth– White; the Clementine, however, reads, with studied ambiguity, ‘factum est nihil, quod factum est, in ipso vita erat’, an ambiguity which, unfortunately, later printers of the Latin Bible (the so-called Sixto-Clementine Vulgate) did not always preserve. 4 (a) The external witness of the Fathers, of the earlier uncials, and of ¸75, is proof that though most later Greek MSS. of the Gospel favour reading 1, reading 2 is the more ancient interpretation of the text. The fullest account of the Greek manuscript tradition is in Aland’s article, on pp. 187-90. Of 148 minuscules examined by him, 121 have reading 1, though two of these (885 and 1814) are fifteenth-century commentaries which on this point diverge from the lemma of their text, which is 2. Of the remaining 27 minuscules, only five read 2, one from the twelfth century (850) and four from the fifteenth (149 880 1820 2129—2129 reading [ii] [a]). Of the 22 others, 17 place a punctuation mark both after oujdevn, and after o} gevgonen, so that it is possible to construe the text either as 1 or as 2. The remaining five are very confused, but all have a full point after gevgonen. Thus the later Greek manuscript tradition is overwhelmingly in favour of reading 1. The witness of the uncials, however, points in a different direction. Aland prints out a complete list, with the punctuation of the lemma in each of 33 manuscripts clearly indicated (pp. 189-90). The early uncials ¸66 B a* A have no division between the words at this point, only scriptio continua, and must therefore be left out of consideration. However, 3 It is also true to say that before 1950, nearly all commentators followed Reading 1 (exceptions are Westcott, Loisy, Bernard, Gächter, Bultmann, Hoskyns–Davey), and that since 1950 an ever-increasing number of commentators has argued in favour of 2 (notably Roman Catholic scholars, such as Boismard, Lacan, Lamarche, de la Potterie, R. E. Brown, van den Bussche, and Zimmermann). 4 The simplest and surest way of checking the various readings of the ‘official’ printed texts of the Vulgate is to consult Biblia Sacra Vulgatae editionis Sixti V …et Clementis VIII auctoritate edita… edidit Michael Hetzenauer, 3a ed., Regensburg, 1929. On Jn 1.3-4, see Hetzenauer’s long note on 1264.

106

JOHN 1–4

the first uncials to contain punctuation, ¸75c (early third century), C (fifth century), and D (fifth to sixth centuries) testify unambiguously to reading 2 (with the corrector of C making it more precise as 2 [b]). Thereafter, however, from the turn of the sixth and seventh centuries, the uncials, now regularly punctuated, nearly all join with the minuscules to support reading 1. Thus E F G H S V W Y Q etc., with reading 2 attested only in Wsupp L 050* 0141. Taking this evidence in conjunction with that of the minuscules, it would appear that the construction ‘That which was made in him was life’ represents the early interpretation of the text, and that the alternative, reading 1 (‘…was made nothing that was made’) began to replace it in the Greek manuscripts at some time in the sixth century. The fact that 2 represents the more ancient understanding of the words is further supported by the evidence of Tatian’s Diatessaron, of the Old Syriac (syc; sys is here missing), of the Coptic Sahidic, and of the Old Latin tradition; indeed, according to F. C. Burkitt, 5 this is also the correct reading of the Peshitta. The strongest argument, however, in favour of reading 2 is that until around A.D. 300 all the Christian writers and all the heretics without exception understood the text in this way. Thus all the second-century Gnostics (who punctuate as in 2 [b], ‘quod factum est in ipso, vita erat’),6 and Irenaeus in his polemic against them; thus Tertullian and Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen. 7 Indeed, the two most powerful arguments in favour of reading 2 are that Irenaeus, who cites the text ten times (I 8:5; 9; 21:1; II 2:5; III 8:3; 11:8; 21:10; IV 32:1; V 18:2; Dem. 43) seems quite unaware of any other understanding of the words, for the first interpretation, had he known of it, would have been a crushing retort to his adversaries. Origen also, who customarily lists all conceivable interpretations, and who (In Ioannem. II 13-14: SC 120, pp. 214-17) castigates Heracleon for not observing the significance of the presence and absence of the definite article before qeov" in Jn 1.1, is equally unaware of any construction other than 2. A full list of writers supporting 2 is given in UBS.8 One may add that reading 2 was the usual interpretation accepted by all the Latin writers of the Middle Ages, following Augustine.9

5

JTS 4 (1903), 436-38. On the Gnostic interpretation of this verse, see the masterly study by A. Orbe, En los albores de la exegesis iohannea = Estudios Valentinianos II. 7 The references to Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement and Origen may be found in K. Aland, ZNW 59 (1968), 190-94, and those to Hippolytus on 195-96. 8 For a detailed defence of Reading 2, see Miller, Salvation History, 17-44. 9 This can be very clearly seen in Thomas Aquinas’s handbook of patristic quotations, completed in 1267, entitled Catena Aurea in Quattuor Evangelia: In Ioannem I, 7 (vol. 2: Turin, 1953, 332-33). 6

EXCURSUS IV

107

The internal evidence does not prove that reading 1 is certainly that intended by the evangelist. The fact that reading 2 is the more ancient interpretation of the text does not, of course, prove that this was the meaning intended by the original writer, or the evangelist. Barrett, while disclaiming any certainty, presents succinctly the internal arguments in favour of reading 1. He writes that this reading ‘gives a better parallel structure to the clause because oujde; e{n is a frequent sentence ending when greater emphasis than a simple oujdevn is required (e.g. Josephus, Ant. VI 266), and because after oujde; e{n, w|n (rather than o}) gevgonen would be expected. [Neither] of these reasons is convincing, and against them may be set (1) John’s very frequent use of ejn at the beginning of a sentence; (2) his frequent repetitiousness (nothing was made that has been made; cf. e.g. vv. 1ff.); (3) such passages as 5.26, 39; 6.53, which give a similar sense; (4) the fact that it makes much better, and more Johannine sense to say that in the Word was life, than to say that the created universe was life in him, and that this life was the light of men. The alternative ways of rendering (That which came into being—in it the Word was life; That which came into being—in the Word was its life) are almost impossibly clumsy. After a detailed discussion, Schnackenburg comes to the same conclusion.’ 10 If, however, o} gevgonen refers to something other than the making of the material creation, these objections may not hold. Was the Original Reading of the Verb in 1.12 Singular or Plural? The controversy on whether the verb in Jn 1.12 should be read in the singular, ejgennhvqh, dates back to Tertullian. 11 The UBS edition lists the manuscript evidence, and its editors rate the plural as virtually certain {A}. ‘It appeared to the Committee that, on the basis of the overwhelming consensus of all Greek manuscripts, the plural must be adopted, a reading which, moreover, is in accord with the characteristic teaching of John. The singular number may have arisen either from a desire to make the Fourth Gospel allude explicitly to the virgin birth or from the influence of the singular number of the immediately preceding aujtou'.’ The majority of scholars agree, and the first translation bold enough to

10

For a fuller discussion, see Miller, Salvation History, 18-27. The most comprehensive study of this reading is J. Galot, Etre né de Dieu (Jean 1.13), Analecta Biblica 37, Rome, 1969, which has an excellent bibliography to that date. Also worth consulting are: F.-M. Braun, ‘ “Qui ex Deo natus est” (Jean 1.13)’, in Aux Sources de la Tradition chrétienne (Mélanges offerts à M. Maurice Goguel), Paris, 1950, 11-31, and A. Houssiau, ‘Le milieu théologique de la leçon ejgennhvqh’, in Sacra Pagina II, BETL 13, Paris-Gembloux, 1959, 169-88. The main arguments are summarized in J. McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament, London, 1975, 255-68. 11

108

JOHN 1–4

emend was that by D. Mollat in the Bible de Jérusalem (1953).12 Yet an imposing group of twentieth-century writers (including more Protestants than Roman Catholics) have pronounced themselves in favour of the singular as the original reading of the text. 13 (a) All the Greek manuscripts without exception read the plural, as do all the ancient versions. The singular is found only in one Old Latin MS. (Codex Veronensis b, fifth century), in an eleventh-century Lectionary from Toledo whose authorship is attributed to Hildefonsus (657–667) (both of which have natus est), and in the Curetonian Syriac. (The lastnamed, however, has the antecedent relative pronoun in the plural, so that the literal translation would be ‘those who…was born of God’. The confusion reappears in six MSS of the Peshitta, dating from the fifth to the tenth century) (b) Direct patristic evidence for the singular, explicitly rejecting the plural, is limited to Tertullian, 14 who may have adopted this reading from Irenaeus.15 Other evidence is indirect, and sparse. The Epistle of the Apostles 3 (ca. 140–180) appears to allude to this text. 16 Irenaeus on four or five occasions appears to presuppose the singular, or at least to show signs of acquaintance with it. 17 Ambrose and Augustine, who sometimes 12 And in the one-volume edition of 1956. The plural replaced it in the (English) NJB (1985), but the French version still retains the singular. 13 Among those who favour the singular are A. Resch, F. Blass, A. von Harnack (with qualifications), Th. Zahn, R. Seeberg, C. F. Burney, F. Büchsel, M.-E. Boismard, F. M. Braun, D. Mollat (references to these in Galot, 5-6). 14 ‘Quid est ergo non ex sanguine nec carnis voluntate nec ex viri, sed ex deo natus est ? Hoc quidem capitulo ego potius utar, cum adulteratores eius obduxero. Sic enim scriptum esse contendunt: “Non ex sanguine nec carnis voluntate nec ex viri, sed ex deo nati sunt”, quasi supra dictos credentes in nomine eius designet.’ These lines from De carne Christi 19.1, are Tertullian’s only reference to Jn 1.13, apart from a passing mention in 24.2 of the same work (‘Et non ex sanguine nec carnis voluntate nec ex viri, sed ex deo natus est Hebion respondit’, i.e. he replies to Ebion that…). The two texts are in CCSG 2.907; 915-16 = PL 2.784B and 791A. 15 De carne Christi was written around 212. In his Adv. Valentinianos 5,1, written between 208 and 211, Tertullian names Irenaeus as one of his sources ‘quos optaverim sequi’ (CCSG 2.756 = PL 2.548-49). 16 The exact date and place of its composition are uncertain, but all are agreed that it was written at the outside between A.D. 140 and 210, probably between 140 and 180. Egypt, Palestine, Syria and Asia Minor have all been proposed as the place of origin. Chapter 3 is extant only in Ethiopic, and translates as: ‘we believe that the word which became flesh through the holy virgin Mary…was born not by the lust of the flesh but by the will of God’ (see Elliott ANT 559; James ANT 486; NTA I 193). 17 The texts are: (1) ‘non enim ex voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntate viri, sed ex voluntate Dei, Verbum caro factum est’ (Adv. Haer. III 17 1 = Harvey II 83 = PG [16.2] 7.921-22 = SC 294); (2) ‘cognoscit autem illum, is cui Pater qui est in caelis revelavit ut intelligat, quoniam is qui non ex voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntate viri natus est, filius hominis, hic est Christus Filius Dei vivi’ (III 20 2 = Harvey II 103 = PG [19.2] 7.940A = SC 294); (3) perhaps also ‘circumscripsit igitur genitalia viri in promissione Scriptura: imo vero nec commemoratur, quoniam non ex voluntate viri erat, qui nascebatur’ (III 26 1 = Harvey II 117 = PG [21.5] 7.952A = SC 416); (4) ‘et propter hoc in fine non ex

EXCURSUS IV

109

use the singular may well have been influenced, directly or indirectly, by Tertullian.18 (c) Yet the internal evidence in favour of the singular is strong. Galot has argued the case at length, and it will be sufficient to summarize only his most important arguments. (1) Why should such stress be placed on the negative aspects of spiritual regeneration? It throws no light on the nature of spiritual rebirth, and in no way prepares the reader for the statement immediately following, that ‘The Word became flesh’. (2) How can those who have already been begotten of God (v.13) be given the power to become children of God? ‘We are so accustomed to reading the plural that we no longer notice how bewildering it is, how difficult to accept’ (Galot, 96). (3) On the other hand, if the singular be read, and taken to refer to the earthly birth of Jesus, it is easy to explain the threefold negation as a triple affirmation of the virginal conception of Jesus against its first opponents, probably Ebionites. Irenaeus in particular never seems to have suspected that the text could bear any other meaning. (4) The Fourth Gospel sometimes asserts that the Word made flesh gives to those who believe in him the power to become or to share in what Jesus himself already is par excellence (e.g. 11:25; 12.36; 14.12). Would not this make excellent sense in 1.13? There is thus a head-on collision between the arguments from external and internal evidence. Braun argues that the witness of Irenaeus (and perhaps Justin) should be preferred above all other external authorities, inasmuch as they were closely linked with Ephesus. 19 Galot suggests20 (less convincingly) that an original singular was altered, some time between 160 and 190, to a plural, when the text was applied to the spiritual regeneration of believers; but are we to believe that not a single Greek text remained untouched by the correction? Barrett suggests that the reverse process may have been at work, namely, that John was ‘declaring that the birth of Christians, being bloodless and rooted in God’s will alone, followed the pattern of Christ himself’. Burney and Torrey have argued that the Fourth Gospel was originally written in Aramaic, and even if their arguments are far from conclusive, a case can be made that some parts of it were. If Jn 1.13-14 had been written in Aramaic the copulative waw at the beginning of 14 could, by dittography, have been repeated at the end of v.13, thereby turning an voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntate viri, sed ex placito Patris manus eius vivum perfecerunt hominem, uti fiat Adam secundum imaginem et similitudinem Dei’ (V 1 3 = Harvey II 3173 = PG [16.2] 7.1123B = SC 28); (5) possibly also the short remark ‘quod enim ex Deo natum est, Deus est’ (I 8 5 = Harvey I 77 = PG 7.534B = SC 130). 18 Augustine’s best-known text with the singular (Confessions VII 9, 13 = PL 32.74041) understands the verse as referring to the eternal generation of the Word apud Patrem. So also Loisy, 180-82. But in that case, would the threefold negation be necessary? 19 See F.-M. Braun, ‘“Qui ex Deo natus est” (Jean 1.13)’, in Aux Sources de la Tradition chrétienne, 26-30. 20 Galot, 87-89.

110

JOHN 1–4

Aramaic singular (dlyta,